|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Diablo 3 - Why Fallout 1 Could be succesfull Today @ Pixelitis

Default Diablo 3 - Why Fallout 1 Could be succesfull Today @ Pixelitis

June 28th, 2012, 14:35
Originally Posted by fadedc View Post
Again any definition that claims that classic RPGs, are not RPGs, is a bad definition, classical or not.
That has no ground.

Any misuse of a definition leads to this situation:

-a definition is given

-the definition is misused and items that do not correspond with the definition are introduced

-proper use of the definition excludes these items.

Never makes a definition bad or good.

The meter is defined. Certain objects longer than one meter are considered one meter (misuse of the definition). These objects are excluded by the proper use of the definition. Therefore the definition of the meter is not good because it excludes objects considered one meter long when they were not.

Gimme a break.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#61

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,104

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 14:39
Originally Posted by CountChocula View Post
"Likes to bash monsters" could be one trait of a character, but "someone who bashes monsters" is simply not a character.
You are aiming toward personality, traits, attributes etc here. Maybe I should use avatar instead.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#62

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,104

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 14:44
Well there argument is just that Fallout 3 was to scared to use the isometric graphics of the previous Fallout games, because they thought that was the kiss of death. They claim that D3's success shows that a game with isometric graphics can be succesful.
I agree that the article seem to be talking about this.


Basicaly FO3 as a project was not created for the profit without counting the audience of other platforms rather then pc, as being and looking isometric game on those platforms wouldn't be that successful game, not like I am hearing that FO4 will come when the new generation of consoles. I also assume what they did to Prey 2 seem alright since the original game have the perspective of view.
Igor is offline

Igor

Igor's Avatar
Watchdog

#63

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 168

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 14:45
Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
You are aiming toward personality, traits, attributes etc here. Maybe I should use avatar instead.
I was responding to D'artagnan's comment about playing the role of someone who bashes monsters.

If the entire concept of your character is "someone who bashes monsters," it's not possible to play a role, as you would need to be able to consider what actions your character wants to take.
CountChocula is offline

CountChocula

CountChocula's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#64

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chocovania
Posts: 1,478

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 14:52
Originally Posted by Cacheperl View Post
And its important to remember this. Developers should focus less on building astonishing graphics, but rather try to deliver good gameplay and story.
You forget that it's gamers who demand "shiny".

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#65

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,987

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 15:10
Well again, that's largely opinion, as many would say that it's not remotely the place of the GM to judge how well someone plays their archetype, but just the consequences of their actions. Many don't even like to use archetypes. But assuming we do use your example, what would be a computer RPG that had these features?

I've seen people make the argument that no computer game is a RPG, and that's actually a much more reasonable argument, if you define RPGs the way that you do.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
If you have ever played a RPG elsewhere than on a computer, you should be familiar to archetypes of various roles as most if not all roleplaying books provide examples of them to allow roleplaying. They are usually individuals who provide examples of what it means to of that role.

As to the feedback system, it is usually applied by the GM who the one who assesses if you behave properly/unproperly compared to the archetype.

Background is not role, and a RPG does not need a story. It requires situations to allow roleplaying, situations that might be strung into a story.
fadedc is offline

fadedc

Keeper of the Watch

#66

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,008

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 15:17
Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur View Post
Background is not role, and a RPG does not need a story. It requires situations to allow roleplaying, situations that might be strung into a story.
You are DEEEP into role playing theory now, do you realize that ?

And, besides, what you describe here is known in PC tech as a "point-to-point connection".

In German TDE role playing, playing a role without an adventure (read : a story) is like trying to divide by zero.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#67

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,987

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 16:58
If the entire concept of your character is "someone who bashes monsters," it's not possible to play a role, as you would need to be able to consider what actions your character wants to take.
You don't seem to understand what playing a role means.

It doesn't actually require the player to make decisions about what his character would do. Just like playing a film role doesn't necessarily mean you, as an actor, get to change the script or actions of the character you're portraying.

So, that's definitely both logically and semantically wrong.

Then, there IS choice involved when "bashing monsters" - because it involves HOW you approach combat AND how your character develops. Those are parts of the role of a "monster basher" and you're actively influencing that role by selecting powers, weapons - and tactical decisions during combat.

You are roleplaying a monster basher - pure and simple.

Now, that might not be interesting to you - and it might not qualify as a good roleplaying experience. But it IS roleplaying.

I simply can't believe people still think they can objectively define a genre as rich and varied as RPG.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#68

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,580

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 17:07
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
You don't seem to understand what playing a role means.

It doesn't actually require the player to make decisions about what his character would do. Just like playing a film role doesn't necessarily mean you, as an actor, get to change the script or actions of the character you're portraying.

So, that's definitely both logically and semantically wrong.

Then, there IS choice involved when "bashing monsters" - because it involves HOW you approach combat AND how your character develops. Those are parts of the role of a "monster basher" and you're actively influencing that role by selecting powers, weapons - and tactical decisions during combat.

You are roleplaying a monster basher - pure and simple.

Now, that might not be interesting to you - and it might not qualify as a good roleplaying experience. But it IS roleplaying.

I simply can't believe people still think they can objectively define a genre as rich and varied as RPG.
I agree that such scenarios could be called "roleplaying", but almost every genre has that type of roleplaying, from FPS to simulators to RPGs. Roleplaying either needs to be a far more clearly defined term or you might as well drop the term when referring to games, as it exists in more or less every game beyond Tetris.

It reminds me a bit of terms like "food". If you look up food, you'll see that it describes anything edible, whether it's grass, worms or a juicy steak. Most people don't use that term though, they use a more specific term based on the food people in their particular culture tend to eat.
Maylander is offline

Maylander

SasqWatch

#69

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bergen
Posts: 5,473
Send a message via MSN to Maylander

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 17:18
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
You don't seem to understand what playing a role means.

It doesn't actually require the player to make decisions about what his character would do. Just like playing a film role doesn't necessarily mean you, as an actor, get to change the script or actions of the character you're portraying.

So, that's definitely both logically and semantically wrong.

On the contrary, this is exactly what playing a role is, whether you are performing in the theater, film, or playing a role in a role playing game.

You must consider your character's perspective (again "someone who bashes monsters" is not a character) and make choices, taking actions you think that character would take.

When you are performing as an actor in a film, obviously, you don't rewrite the script and go to a different location, etc. However, acting in a film is still all about your choices, just as playing a role in an RPG.

This is precisely how one plays a role, by considering the objectives of your character and making choices. On a 35mm close-up, the tiniest choices are magnified a thousand-fold. Even though you already know the outcome of the scene beforehand, you are going through this process, on camera, of choosing what your character would choose to do.

Certainly there are bad films and bad actors and cases where you could say someone is not even acting, just standing in front of a camera and reading lines.

But when an actor is truly acting, he is taking actions he feels his character would take, making choices he feels his character would choose, saying things he feels his character would say.

Your director might reject your interpretation of the character, perhaps he has a different opinion about what your character would choose to do in a given scene. As an actor it is your job to respond to the director's notes and find a way to justify that choice, perhaps by coming up with some reason in the backstory as to why the character would take that particular action your director wants you to take.
Last edited by CountChocula; June 28th, 2012 at 17:33.
CountChocula is offline

CountChocula

CountChocula's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#70

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chocovania
Posts: 1,478

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 17:22
Originally Posted by Maylander View Post
I agree that such scenarios could be called "roleplaying", but almost every genre has that type of roleplaying, from FPS to simulators to RPGs. Roleplaying either needs to be a far more clearly defined term or you might as well drop the term when referring to games, as it exists in more or less every game beyond Tetris.
Very true, but I'm not the one saying that playing an elaborate role = necessary for a roleplaying game.

To me, it's just one aspect of what the genre is potentially about.

As for the use of the term RPG - I think it's quite handy, just as long as you accept the limitations inherent in having a difference of opinion when communicating.

It reminds me a bit of terms like "food". If you look up food, you'll see that it describes anything edible, whether it's grass, worms or a juicy steak. Most people don't use that term though, they use a more specific term based on the food people in their particular culture tend to eat.
Indeed, and I tend to be very specific when I'm trying to define something.

I generally can't do it with a game by just calling it an RPG.

Mostly, I use established games as a means of comparion - because that's probably the most tangible demonstration I can come up with, that doesn't require a large amount of time to say.

I think it's impossible to come up with a foolpoof definition of an RPG that's also useful. Certainly, I've yet to see one that's even remotely there.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#71

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,580

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 18:32
I think that each personal definition of "what defines playing a role" is different whether

- you come from a pen & paper background
- have never touched or even played pen & paper role playing games at all.

In one discussion at the RPC a few years ago I witnessed someone firmly stating that "there are not role-playing games at all !" - and he meant C-RPGs.

If you try to argue at the RPC (German "Role Play Convention") with a deeply involved pen & paper role playing person (or even fan) that you "play a role in" let's say Blizzard's games - then you will be laughed at. And that quite loudly. And bystanders would chime in.


I have learned, however, that D&D players (even pen & paper) define "role playing" often quite differently than we do here in Germany, especially with our Nr.1 RPG system, which is The Dark eye (TDE).

I have learned and had the impression as if with D&D players the "simple monster bashing" mind set is much, much more common (or even the "natural", "standard" mind set) than have always known from TDE.

So I suspect that this might also be a case of entirely different philosophies ? America vs. Europe ? Monster bashing vs. story telling (and experiencing) ?

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#72

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,987

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 18:43
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
So I suspect that this might also be a case of entirely different philosophies ? America vs. Europe ? Monster bashing vs. story telling (and experiencing) ?
I'm not so sure about your hypothesis, as I'm from the US and I'd agree that it's not possible to role play in Diablo 3 (unless perhaps you are performing some mental exercise, pretending to play a completely different game).

You are not even able to choose to bash monsters, as such a choice would require that there be an alternative.
CountChocula is offline

CountChocula

CountChocula's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#73

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chocovania
Posts: 1,478

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 19:00
Ahem. Yes, you are right.

It's called "railroading" in pen & paper discussions.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#74

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,987

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 19:13
Well again you could say the same thing about every classic CRPG (and most of the more modern ones as well), that you don't have any choice but to bash the monsters.

Railroading of course is classic in P&P games as well, at least here in the US. Most D&D modules are made with the assumption that players will fight the monsters. But at least here in America, there are many different styles of playing P&P games. People range from hack and slash powergamers to method actors looking for audience among their fellow gamers. Needless to say, these two types of gamers do not usually get along at the same table.
fadedc is offline

fadedc

Keeper of the Watch

#75

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,008

Default 

June 28th, 2012, 21:18
Yes, indeed. Both player types are almost mutually exclusive, in my opinion.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#76

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,987

Default 

June 29th, 2012, 04:47
Originally Posted by fadedc View Post
And even when it comes to traditional pen and paper RPGs, many play games that are just hack and slash, and which have no character interaction or story.
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
Yes, indeed. Both player types are almost mutually exclusive, in my opinion.
I've been playing PnP games for nearly 30 years now, with a wide range of groups and many different games. So far, I have never come across anyone running a game without character interaction and story.

These games are all about that moment when your GM asks you, "What do you want to do next?" and there are a million possibilities. Doesn't matter if you're running a prefab module from a book, it's impossible for a pen and paper game to be linear, because the players can always do whatever the hell they want (or at least make the attempt). And it doesn't matter if the GM is flying by the seat of his pants, there is always going to be a story. The story unfolds out of the actions of the characters and NPCs, the players choosing what they think their character wants to do and the GM playing the part of the NPCs.

Some newer players might have had more simplistic concepts of their character, but it was still a character, not "someone who bashes monsters."

If some crazy person out there is running a PnP campaign that is just a wargame battle simulator with minis, and the players really don't have characters and aren't making choices about what they think their character would want to do, then they are not role playing and whatever abomination they are playing is certainly not a role playing game.
CountChocula is offline

CountChocula

CountChocula's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#77

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chocovania
Posts: 1,478

Default 

June 29th, 2012, 04:58
interesting idea
Ronaldas is offline

Ronaldas

Banned

#78

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4

Default 

June 29th, 2012, 05:04
I definitely have. Many editions of D&D even give rules and advice for how to do this. The original DMG dedicated a great deal of space to rules for creating completely random dungeons with completely random monsters and loot that people could hack and slash through. Many other editions have something similar. You may consider this to be an abomination, but Gary Gygax certainly did not.

Originally Posted by CountChocula View Post
I've been playing PnP games for nearly 30 years now, with a wide range of groups and many different games. So far, I have never come across anyone running a game without character interaction and story.
fadedc is offline

fadedc

Keeper of the Watch

#79

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,008

Default 

June 29th, 2012, 05:21
Originally Posted by fadedc View Post
I definitely have. Many editions of D&D even give rules and advice for how to do this. The original DMG dedicated a great deal of space to rules for creating completely random dungeons with completely random monsters and loot that people could hack and slash through. Many other editions have something similar. You may consider this to be an abomination, but Gary Gygax certainly did not.
It doesn't matter if the dungeons and creatures are randomly generated, in fact this is a very important tool for adapting the story on the fly to accommodate roleplaying. Players choose to do what they think their character would want to do, which often results in them going into some new town, or some area that the GM (or the prefab module) did not anticipate.

And it can even be a lot of fun (and a bit challenging) to run an adventure or campaign entirely by the seat of your pants. The GM plays the part of all the NPCs and creatures in the world and those randomized lists come in very handy for adapting the story on the fly. But there is always a story.

In an improv game, and even in a preplanned adventure, the narrative unfolds organically out of the actions of the characters. The players have characters (not "Monster Basher #1"), and can choose to do anything they imagine their character would want to do. For example, a common event in some of those prefab modules from the 70s is the frightened NPC in a tavern complaining about goblins or dragons or whatever happens to be plaguing that particular town.

When your GM asks you, "what do you want to do next?" that question is overflowing with possibilities. Your next step could mean enlisting the aid of that frightened NPC, making a mortal enemy out of him, killing him, stealing from him, lying to him, blowing it off and going in a completely different direction, or choosing any of an infinite number of a possible actions, all depending on what you feel your character would choose to do.

From your post above, it sounds like you are implying that someone is playing D&D without any characters, without being able to choose what they think their character would want to do. If so, then they are definitely not role playing. You need a role and you need to be able to "play" it, by choosing what you think that character would want to do. Gary Gygax would not approve
CountChocula is offline

CountChocula

CountChocula's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#80

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chocovania
Posts: 1,478
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Diablo 3 - Why Fallout 1 Could be succesfull Today @ Pixelitis
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:22.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch