Jump to content

Recommended Posts

That isn't role-playing anymore than spamming freeze attacks when controlling Sub-Zero in Mortal Kombat is. That is playing the game by controlling a toon.

That's tons more than what you can do with your fighter in BG1. Hell, you don't even get to choose your Fighter's attacks in BG1, you simply point and click and the game does the rest.

 

You gonna argue that BG1 isn't an RPG?

 

 

Punchout still isn't an RPG, though, because it doesn't have anything resembling a leveling/advancement mechanic.

Role-Playing does not require an advancement mechanic. Role-Playing Games do not require an adbancement mechanic, they require role-playing. If they required an advancement mechanic, they would be called "advancement mechanic game".

 

No, they can't be called "advancement mechanic games", and this isn't an either/or. An RPG must have BOTH Role playing and an advancement mechanic.

 

 

 

Wrong. Look up the definition Role-Playing,

Ok, Kaine, try and keep up. We are NOT discussing the definition of role playing. We are discussing the definition of Role Playing GAME. There is a difference here because a Role playing GAME must contain multiple features, with Roleplaying being just one of them.

 

 

What do you do in Diablo 1 & 2 and in Dungeon Siege 1 & 2 except control a bunch of toons?

Diablo and Dungeon Siege are hack-and-slash action games, not Role-Playing games, so that isn't relevant.

 

Nope. They're action role playing games. Defined as such by the industry and by the developers themselves. And that's where your argument falls flat.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Mario games you control character named Mario and your goal is to pass challenges on levels and you win game when there is no more challenges.

 

In role-play you play a character or sometimes multiple characters, you don't control your character/s, but are your character/s.

 

And when you combine role-play with game, you add rules and goals, which tell how your character/s work and what you need to do to win the game.

 

And when we put role-play game in video game format, then things get bit blurry which causes quite much confusion, as in typical crpg you play role of character by controlling that character's avatar, which make experience much more like a Mario game than role-play, which is why character building mechanics and player's ability to control his or her character's choices and motivations become important features to make game role-playing game, not because they allow role-playing (you can role-play character, which avatar you control  in any game if you want, as you always can invent motivations, etc.), but because they force player to role-play his or her character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's tons more than what you can do with your fighter in BG1.

If you're seriously going to argue that their were less options for any class in Baldur's Gate than in Punch-Out, then I have to question whether you've actually played Baldur's Gate.

 

You can't jump out of the ring and wander around the wilderness in Punch-Out, can't ditch "canon" NPCs to take along random people you encounter in Punch-Out, and you certainly can't kill bystanders in Punch-Out. You can do all of those things as a Fighter in Baldur's gate.

 

You gonna argue that BG1 isn't an RPG?

No.

 

No, they can't be called "advancement mechanic games", and this isn't an either/or. An RPG must have BOTH Role playing and an advancement mechanic.

No. The only thing a Role-Playing Game must have is Role-Playing. There is no universal law that requires an advancement mechanic for a game if it allows role-playing.

 

Ok, Kaine, try and keep up. We are NOT discussing the definition of role playing. We are discussing the definition of Role Playing GAME. There is a difference here because a Role playing GAME must contain multiple features, with Roleplaying being just one of them.

The definition of Role-Playing Game is a Game with Role-Playing.

 

The only requisite feature a Role-Playing game must contain is Role-Playing.

 

Neither "Game" nor "Role-Playing" have any requirements of an advancement system.

 

Nope. They're action role playing games. Defined as such by the industry and by the developers themselves. And that's where your argument falls flat.

Then the industry is wrong, just as the music industry is wrong to label hip-hop acts as "Rhythm and Blues".

“By striving to do the impossible, man has always achieved what is possible. Those who have cautiously done no more than they believed possible have never taken a single step forward.” ― Mikhail Bakunin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sylvius is here?

 

You can't argue with Sylvius. That dude is on another plane of reality entirely.  :biggrin:

http://forums.obsidian.net/user/881-sylvius-the-mad/

 

I've always enjoyed his posts. Seems to be the rough equivalent of taking acid and listening to trees talk to you.

  • Like 1

“By striving to do the impossible, man has always achieved what is possible. Those who have cautiously done no more than they believed possible have never taken a single step forward.” ― Mikhail Bakunin

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're seriously going to argue that their were less options for any class in Baldur's Gate than in Punch-Out,

Less options for fighters at level 1 at least. A level 1 fighter can do 1 thing in BG1. Click on something to auto attack/interact with it as the game wills.

 

You can't jump out of the ring and wander around the wilderness in Punch-Out, can't ditch "canon" NPCs to take along random people you encounter in Punch-Out, and you certainly can't kill bystanders in Punch-Out. You can do all of those things as a Fighter in Baldur's gate.

You are describing 1) exploration; and 2) party based mechanics in a game world here. Is it your contention that these two are required for something to be an RPG? Or are you just changing the subject? I brought up fighters in BG1 because they are the ultimate example of the player being able to do nothing but control a character.... that is, aside from character building... which is the leveling mechanic....which is something you claim isn't required.

 

 

You gonna argue that BG1 isn't an RPG?

No.

 

Then you're being hypocritical. Aside from character building, and Party gameplay/management, there are very few Roleplaying opportunities in BG1.

 

 

 

No. The only thing a Role-Playing Game must have is Role-Playing. There is no universal law that requires an advancement mechanic for a game if it allows role-playing.

Yes there is. It's called the laws of capitalism. A product will fail if it can't sell. There's not a single computer role playing game in history that has only had Roleplaying. Ask yourself why. No, check that. I'll tell you why. Because it wouldn't be a game. It would be a remarkably boring (and redundant) story-telling vehicle that goes nowhere. It'd be no different than reading a Choose-your-own-adventure book on your Kindle....for 60 hours.

 

 

Nope. They're action role playing games. Defined as such by the industry and by the developers themselves. And that's where your argument falls flat.

Then the industry is wrong

 

Indeed. The entire industry is wrong (and has been wrong for the last 20 years.) Only Kaine is correct. World according to KainParker and all that. Edited by Stun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Less options for fighters at level 1 at least. A level 1 fighter can do 1 thing in BG1. Click on something to auto attack/interact with it as the game wills.

A level 1 fighter can choose to attack from far away or within reach, can that be done in Punch-Out?

 

You are describing 1) exploration; and 2) party based mechanics in a game world here.

Yes, which are all things a level 1 Fighter can do in Baldur's Gate. You have played the game, right?

 

Is it your contention that these two are required for something to be an RPG? Or are you just changing the subject?

No, it would take a rather liberal reading to come to either one of those conclusions.

 

I brought up fighters in BG1 because they are the ultimate example of the player being able to do nothing but control a character.... that is, aside from character building... which is the leveling mechanic....which is something you claim isn't required.

And I pointed out that a Fighter could do far more in Baldur's gate than the toon could do in Punch-Out. Baldur's Gate is more than a series of combat encounters featuring a single toon.

 

Then you're being hypocritical. Aside from character building, and Party gameplay/management, there are very few Roleplaying opportunities in BG1.

Then I must have played a different Baldur's gate. I remember a PC being able to kill Dynaheir and Minsc or Edwin, spare or kill both of Sarevok's squeezes, assist or destroy the thieve's guild, attack guards who threaten the PC or flee, choose to abandon the Gorion's instructions and wander aimlessly around the Sword Coast.

 

Yes there is. It's called the laws of capitalism. A product will fail if it can't sell.

The ability of a game to sell has no bearing on whether it is a valid implementation of a genre.

 

Are you going to argue that John Carter wasn't a Sci-Fi movie because it flopped?

 

Only Kaine is correct.

Not only me, just anyone capable of applying the correct definitions to things.

 

Well, Saint's Row has finished. Enjoy your butthurt Stunny-boo.

Edited by KaineParker
  • Like 2

“By striving to do the impossible, man has always achieved what is possible. Those who have cautiously done no more than they believed possible have never taken a single step forward.” ― Mikhail Bakunin

Link to post
Share on other sites

A level 1 fighter can choose to attack from far away or within reach, can that be done in Punch-Out?

Not as such, but that can be done with Characters in Mortal Kombat. And for that matter, you can jab and uppercut in Punchout, can a level 1 fighter do that in BG1?

 

 

You are describing 1) exploration; and 2) party based mechanics in a game world here.

Yes, which are all things a level 1 Fighter can do in Baldur's Gate. You have played the game, right?

 

I have, yes. Back to the question:

 

 

 

Is it your contention that these two are required for something to be an RPG? Or are you just changing the subject?

No, it would take a rather liberal reading to come to either one of those conclusions.

 

Bullsh^t. We were comparing Punch-out to fighters in BG1 and those were the only 2 mechanics you managed to cite as differences. What conclusion should one draw? I, of course, can cite at least a dozen more differences, but then again, I'm not the one claiming that there's only ONE thing that can make a game an RPG.... you are.

 

 

I brought up fighters in BG1 because they are the ultimate example of the player being able to do nothing but control a character.... that is, aside from character building... which is the leveling mechanic....which is something you claim isn't required.

And I pointed out that a Fighter could do far more in Baldur's gate than the toon could do in Punch-Out. Baldur's Gate is more than a series of combat encounters featuring a single toon.

 

Actually, you only cited 2 (minor) differences. 1) exploration 2) party-based mechanics. Ironically, neither of these are Role-playing mechanics.  But hey, I don't blame you. The deeper you dig into BG1, the more you'll come to realize that if you strip everything away from it, leaving only its trivial Roleplaying, you end up with a broken thing that can hardly even be called a game.

 

 

 

Then I must have played a different Baldur's gate. I remember a PC being able to kill Dynaheir and Minsc or Edwin, spare or kill both of Sarevok's squeezes, assist or destroy the thieve's guild, attack guards who threaten the PC or flee, choose to abandon the Gorion's instructions and wander aimlessly around the Sword Coast.

You'll be able to do none of these things without the leveling mechanic that's imbedded into the game, save for rejecting Gorion's advice. And if they were to re-create the game without a leveling mechanic, and say, just have you start off with max health and fighting skills, then, like I said, you'd end up with a Boring, pointless adventure game, and not necessarily an RPG at all.

 

The ability of a game to sell has no bearing on whether it is a valid implementation of a genre.

It has a substantial amount of bearing. It has a huge upward climb with a ton of risk if it doesn't deliver on the genre it claim it is. A game advertised and sold as an RPG but turns out to be nothing more than Flight Simulator with some "RPG mechanics" weaved into it, will probably Fail to sell, since flight-sim fans won't know about its existance, and RPG fans who bought it had nothing but negative word of mouth to say, since they wanted an RPG and got a Flight sim instead.

 

These Genre labels do not exist in a vacuum. They exist to define a game and assist in the selling/marketing process. Hybrids and freak exceptions happen, but you really can't claim they're any sort of rule here.

 

Are you going to argue that John Carter wasn't a Sci-Fi movie because it flopped?

Eh? What the hell is "John Carter"? Edited by Stun
Link to post
Share on other sites

So can we have a chihuahua companion for the ranger?  Something pocket-sized?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's important to point out that role-playing in an RPG is not the same definition as role-playing in a play.  It originally meant the character has a role, a defined set of tasks/responsibilities/capabilities within the party.  As story started to matter more, the two became conflated, but in the sense of RPG it could be seen broadly as a build (and many peoples' characters were so bound by archetypes that they were the same).  

 

I do not see choice and consequence as necessary for an RPG, other than build choice, because there are plenty of dungeon runners that are widely acknowledged as RPGs without it.  However, it is the hallmark of a good RPG.

 

If you think this is just making arbitrary distinctions, that doesn't match the actual origins remember that D&D terminology is anything but precise.  In a dungeon, my characters go down a level so they can fight monsters which will help them go up a level, which will let them go down even more levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What conclusion should one draw?

That it is possible to do more in Baldur's Gate as ANY class than in Punch-Out, because Baldur's Gate is more that a rapid succession of fights featuring one player-controlled toon. If you wanted to make the point that "In combat featuring only a single player controlled toon, a Fighter in Baldur's Gate can do far less than Little mac in Punch-Out", you need to specifically note that you are talking solely about combat encounters featuring a single player-controlled toon. Those circumstances will be all of four fights in Baldur's Gate: Shank, Carbos, the rats, and Jondalar. After that, all parties in Baldur's Gate can contain more than one player controlled-character, not to mention exploration, dialogue choices, and quest completion that is not found in Punch-Out.

 

I, of course, can cite at least a dozen more differences, but then again, I'm not the one claiming that there's only ONE thing that can make a game an RPG.... you are.

If Role-Playing Games Required anything more than a Game with Role-Playing, it would be in the name. Since we don't call them "Role-Playing Games with advancement mechanics", there is no law that requires Role-Playing Games to have an advancement mechanic. I recommend using a dictionary to look up "Role-Playing" and "Game".

 

Actually, you only cited 2 (minor) differences. 1) exploration 2) party-based mechanics. Ironically, neither of these are Role-playing mechanics.

No Stun, those are game mechanics. We are talking about Role-Playing Games, remember? Stating that Baldur's gate as a game has more features than Punch-Out is stating facts.

 

You'll be able to do none of these things without the leveling mechanic that's imbedded into the game, save for rejecting Gorion's advice.

None of those things are intrinsic to the leveling system embedded into the game. Again, it isn't a "level advancement game", it is a "Role-Playing Game". The ability to Role-Play is the only requirement for the game. Everything else, including certain mechanics, are not essential components to the role-playing game.

 

It has a substantial amount of bearing. It has a huge upward climb with a ton of risk if it doesn't deliver on the genre it claim it is. A game advertised and sold as an RPG but turns out to be nothing more than Flight Simulator with some "RPG mechanics" weaved into it, will probably Fail to sell, since flight-sim fans won't know about its existance, and RPG fans who bought it had nothing but negative word of mouth to say, since they wanted an RPG and got a Flight sim instead.

If a game was labeled as a Role-Playing Game and contained nothing but Flight Simulation and advancement mechanics, then that would be false labeling.

 

If a game was labeled as a Role-Playing Game and did not include advancement mechanics, but did heavily encouraged player character role-playing, then that would be a correct labeling.

 

The distinction being that one's main draw is role-playing while the other's is flying a plane.

 

Eh? What the hell is "John Carter"?

A Sci-Fi film that flopped.

 

Is John Carter not a Sci-Fi film because it performed badly?

Edited by KaineParker

“By striving to do the impossible, man has always achieved what is possible. Those who have cautiously done no more than they believed possible have never taken a single step forward.” ― Mikhail Bakunin

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's important to point out that role-playing in an RPG is not the same definition as role-playing in a play.  It originally meant the character has a role, a defined set of tasks/responsibilities/capabilities within the party.  As story started to matter more, the two became conflated, but in the sense of RPG it could be seen broadly as a build (and many peoples' characters were so bound by archetypes that they were the same).  

 

I do not see choice and consequence as necessary for an RPG, other than build choice, because there are plenty of dungeon runners that are widely acknowledged as RPGs without it.  However, it is the hallmark of a good RPG.

 

If you think this is just making arbitrary distinctions, that doesn't match the actual origins remember that D&D terminology is anything but precise.  In a dungeon, my characters go down a level so they can fight monsters which will help them go up a level, which will let them go down even more levels.

I see it differently. I enjoy making a distinct character, and the role-playing part for me is in dialogue and reactivity. The idea that the world is responding to me, or what my character says and does, is something I greatly enjoy.

 

That's the premise on which I backed, btw.

Edited by JFSOCC
  • Like 1

Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more interesting in will different companions has different skills or stats, because according to description all ranger animals will have same skill set.

 

It will be funny to see how some snake knocking people down when running to your ranger with "Master's Call".

Edited by Sherr
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Role-Playing Games Required anything more than a Game with Role-Playing,

Interesting choice of words! You've moved the goal posts. LOL I see you're no longer arguing that to be an RPG, it need only have Role playing and nothing else. Now you're readily admitting that it also needs to be a game.

 

Well, that's true, isn't. Because if it had role playing, and nothing else, it'd just be a graphic novel... a visual Choose-Your-Own-Adventure. And those aren't games.

Edited by Stun
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's important to point out that role-playing in an RPG is not the same definition as role-playing in a play.  It originally meant the character has a role, a defined set of tasks/responsibilities/capabilities within the party.  As story started to matter more, the two became conflated, but in the sense of RPG it could be seen broadly as a build (and many peoples' characters were so bound by archetypes that they were the same).  

 

I do not see choice and consequence as necessary for an RPG, other than build choice, because there are plenty of dungeon runners that are widely acknowledged as RPGs without it.  However, it is the hallmark of a good RPG.

 

If you think this is just making arbitrary distinctions, that doesn't match the actual origins remember that D&D terminology is anything but precise.  In a dungeon, my characters go down a level so they can fight monsters which will help them go up a level, which will let them go down even more levels.

I see it differently. I enjoy making a distinct character, and the role-playing part for me is in dialogue and reactivity. The idea that the world is responding to me, or what my character says and does, is something I greatly enjoy.

 

That's the premise on which I backed, btw.

 

 

It's a significant part of the reason I backed too.  I don't want just an RPG, I want a good one.  That requires reactivity.  When it comes to the definitions though, I'm pretty sure the history behind it is relatively clear.  A lot of VNs have reactivity in the story and dialogue, but I wouldn't call them RPGs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just wondering , if there are a slight chance of getting horses in this game ? Havent seen any rpg with that chance before, or gave i missed something....

 

That idea has been debated to death and the loudest voices seem opposed; not that I don't fully support the idea. The primary reasons given for opposition to rideable mounts are: (1) bad implementation of mount controls in other games, (2) it wouldn't work well for exploration of areas used in the IE series of games, and (3) implementation would require additional animation and graphics. But it has been positively mentioned for use as a non-rideable creature to be found at the party camp site.

  • Like 1

"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Link to post
Share on other sites

mounts could be done well, but I can see why they aren't a priority. Maybe for an expansion.

 

Having a stables in the major cities, and places where you can and cannot go with mounts might make them interesting. They could cut travel time and give some advantages in combat (if they're trained and/or armoured)

 

I imagine especially in survival gameplay. For instance going through a large barren wasteland with depleting rations. You might make it through with a mount when you couldn't without one.

Edited by JFSOCC
  • Like 1

Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting choice of words! You've moved the goal posts. LOL I see you're no longer arguing that to be an RPG, it need only have Role playing and nothing else. Now you're readily admitting that it also needs to be a game.Well, that's true, isn't. Because if it had role playing, and nothing else, it'd just be a graphic novel... a visual Choose-Your-Own-Adventure. And those aren't games.

I would laugh at this, but I'm starting to think you really are this obtuse.

 

In every instance discussing Role-Playing Games, I used the word "Game". Game is a noun, Stun. Surely I don't have to explain the concept of a noun to you?

 

If I say "the only thing a role-playing game requires to be a role-playing game is role-playing", it is very clear to anyone with a basic understanding of English that I'm talking about a game. Not a graphic novel, television show, software program, chat room, or novel, but a game.

 

If you aren't capable of following that, then I highly suggest taking a beginner's course in English.

Edited by KaineParker
  • Like 1

“By striving to do the impossible, man has always achieved what is possible. Those who have cautiously done no more than they believed possible have never taken a single step forward.” ― Mikhail Bakunin

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If Role-Playing Games Required anything more than a Game with Role-Playing,

Interesting choice of words! You've moved the goal posts. LOL I see you're no longer arguing that to be an RPG, it need only have Role playing and nothing else. Now you're readily admitting that it also needs to be a game.

 

Well, that's true, isn't. Because if it had role playing, and nothing else, it'd just be a graphic novel... a visual Choose-Your-Own-Adventure. And those aren't games.

 

You mean all this time I thought I was making a video game and I was just making a fancy CYOA?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...