BioWare - The Cracks Are Starting To Appear

[Motoki]

Dasale you are not the lord god almighty or Santa Claus so you don't know who has played what. If you want to think certain people are lying about having played a game for the purpose of giving slander, blind praise or any other reason you can go ahead and think that but it's just your opinion and not a fact that you can prove.

 

[hishadow]

The question is : what next for Bioware?
As they are now getting away from RPG's, one way and another, leaving the field to Betesdha and CDProjekt mainly.
1/ will they stop their disastrous policy, apologise, and release a real DA2 ( whatever they call it ), listening to the players and respecting the BG legacy?
2/ or will they keep getting away from RPGs to shooters and action games?

EA has dictated that Bioware should focus on more fps-oriented gameplay. They probably view Bioware as a waste of talent and resources by making games that only sells a couple million copies. If they see an increased market with this strategy then Bioware will continue that direction, if there's a backlash they can always return to their "roots".

 

[SAGO]

what makes an rpg?

that is the eternal question

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Eternal question only for people who wish to maintain it an eternal question. What makes RPGs is RP. Now as the genre is declining, maintaining the illusion of a thriving, still vivid genre demands what makes RPGs to be regularly redefined in order to keep the illusion.

People who exclude the possibility that RPG as a genre might be dying are indeed in big demand for anything that could paint RPG as a healthy genre.

Nothing new. Notice that a genre like shooters, that has spectacularly benefited from technological progress to strengthen itself, does not know this trend.

 

[Roi Danton]

Eternal question only for people who wish to maintain it an eternal question. What makes RPGs is RP. Now as the genre is declining, maintaining the illusion of a thriving, still vivid genre demands what makes RPGs to be regularly redefined in order to keep the illusion.

People who exclude the possibility that RPG as a genre might be dying are indeed in big demand for anything that could paint RPG as a healthy genre.

Nothing new. Notice that a genre like shooters, that has spectacularly benefited from technological progress to strengthen itself, does not know this trend.

Really? Then please provide a definition of the RPG genre in one sentence and list references to this definition (games).

To shooters: Shooters have changed more in the last decade than most people realiese. Just compare the mechanics in No One Lives Forever with FEAR or Half-Life with Modern Warfare.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

I have done it already: RPGs are games whose main focus is RP.

As to mechanics, they are what they are: mechanics.

Of course shooters have evolved for the last decade, I stated that the shooter genre is probably the genre that has drawn the most from the technological progress so far.

It is hoped that this time, people who equate a genre with recipes (it should have this, that feature, mechanics and all in it to be) have it.

 

[Dasale]

Dasale you are not the lord god almighty or Santa Claus so you don't know who has played what. If you want to think certain people are lying about having played a game for the purpose of giving slander, blind praise or any other reason you can go ahead and think that but it's just your opinion and not a fact that you can prove.

PC version never had any problem with auto attack, you can name it as you want but either you didn't played the PC version unlike what you let think either it's pure deliberate wrong information. In both cases there's a word, lie.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

I think that day is today. I remember a time when if a game did not have turn based combat it was considered an RPG. Now turn based in CRPGs is dead. Only small indie retro style games and generic, derivative JRPGs are doing it anymore.

That is only one way to define an RPG though, even if it was the first (which is debatable). For me choice and consequence with exploration defines an RPG. Am I wrong? No. Are you wrong? No. Because there is no written-in-stone definition of what an RPG is.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

I have done it already: RPGs are games whose main focus is RP.

Hahaha... and what is the strict definition of "RP" then?

 

[Dasale]

That's terrible to read and read, again and again, that RPG shine or even are characterized for their RP. RPG is just a tag, wake up.

 

[Roi Danton]

I have done it already: RPGs are games whose main focus is RP.

That is not a definition, that's crap. Just do me a favor and look up the words you are actually using. In this case I did it for you:

Definition of ROLE-PLAY
transitive verb
1
: to act out the role of
2
: to represent in action <students were asked to role–play the thoughts and feelings of each character — R. G. Lambert>

That is the core of almost every game, especially every story driven game. You act out roles in Call of Duty, The Longest Journey and Fallout as well as in Wing Commander and Baldurs Gate.
So either provide a better definition or concede the point that RPGs are not defined and that the word can have a different meaning for a various persons.

 

[JemyM]

Roleplaying games might be constructs where roleplaying is a game.
If the roleplaying isn't a game, it's not a roleplaying game, just roleplaying?

 

[Motoki]

PC version never had any problem with auto attack, you can name it as you want but either you didn't played the PC version unlike what you let think either it's pure deliberate wrong information. In both cases there's a word, lie.

Thank you for informing me that my experience was all an illusion. You are clearly the authority on all things.

That is only one way to define an RPG though, even if it was the first (which is debatable). For me choice and consequence with exploration defines an RPG. Am I wrong? No. Are you wrong? No. Because there is no written-in-stone definition of what an RPG is.

I'm not saying it's my definition now, just that myself and others used to think that years ago (we're talking the 80s/90s here ). I don't think there are very many people who think that way now as all the major releases of RPGs have not been turn based in some time.

I guess my point was that ideas of what an RPG is and should not only varies between individuals but also has changed over time with the evolution of the genre and games in general.

 

[Dasale]

Roleplaying games might be constructs where roleplaying is a game.
If the roleplaying isn't a game, it's not a roleplaying game, just roleplaying?

Mmm they roleplay to roleplay roleplay games ie RPG? Well ok not what you mean, I suppose.

But there's no need to search very far. Computer Role Playing Games have their origin from games with Role Play. But in no way they tried implement any Role Play they just borrow the tag.

It ends that at origin zero link between Role Play and computer RPG, except their source of inspiration, but not at all for the Role Play part of their source of inspiration.

EDIT: When you read a book and feel in accordance or in the skin and head of the hero, do you role play? No.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

I'm not saying it's my definition now, just that myself and others used to think that years ago (we're talking the 80s/90s here ). I don't think there are very many people who think that way now as all the major releases of RPGs have not been turn based in some time.

I guess my point was that ideas of what an RPG is and should not only varies between individuals but also has changed over time with the evolution of the genre and games in general.

Well I played all those turn-based RPGs in the 90's for the exploration, stories and choices. Just because most RPGs back then had turn-based combat does not mean that is why people liked them or why they thought of them as RPGs.

The fact that Fallout is turn-based has basically nothing to do with why I loved and still love that game.

 

[Dasale]

I do agree RPG have evolved and to many directions and are still RPG. And some implement a little bit of RP, more than first RPG in the history. But not much RP except a bit more for very few. But in all cases RP isn't a characterization of RPG, and for almost all it's a rather weak part.

 

[Motoki]

Well I played all those turn-based RPGs in the 90's for the exploration, stories and choices. Just because most RPGs back then had turn-based combat does not mean that is why people liked them or why they thought of them as RPGs.

The fact that Fallout is turn-based has basically nothing to do with why I loved and still love that game.

Well same here for the most part. The turn based combat wasn't really the selling point for me but I would definitely avoid action based combat, however I've eventually come around. Either style of combat really isn't my favorite part of an RPG though. I usually just hope it doesn't annoy me and isn't too tedious.

I suppose it's odd that I defined a genre of game by an aspect that wasn't what drew me to it in the first place but that seemed to be the prevailing view at the time. *shrug*

 

[ChienAboyeur]

That is not a definition, that's crap. Just do me a favor and look up the words you are actually using. In this case I did it for you:



That is the core of almost every game, especially every story driven game. You act out roles in Call of Duty, The Longest Journey and Fallout as well as in Wing Commander and Baldurs Gate.
So either provide a better definition or concede the point that RPGs are not defined and that the word can have a different meaning for a various persons.

It means nothing. If RPGs are not defined, then everything and nothing can be categorized as a RPG, voiding the meaning. Then this site and every site reclaiming RPG should also inform about games like Call of Duty, since then, they could be RPGs.
And withdraw the field non RPG gaming to speak of games like Portal 2 etc...

Call of Duty is not an RPG. The focus of the game is not on RP. In no way, a player has to question the behaviour of his/her character in the light of the role the character is supposed to exhibit.

Call of Duty is a drawn line. It is as RP as reading poetry.

Again, this is nothing new. All you stated is that video gaming happens through avatars, that should be sufficient to declare that it is RP as avatars have a role and a character in their universe. Neglecting the relationship of the player to its avatar.

RPGs came after acting. If RPGs were that, they could have been called Acting Games or something like that. They were none, something to ponder.

 

[Roi Danton]

It means nothing. If RPGs are not defined, then everything and nothing can be categorized as a RPG, voiding the meaning. Then this site and every site reclaiming RPG should also inform about games like Call of Duty, since then, they could be RPGs.
And withdraw the field non RPG gaming to speak of games like Portal 2 etc…

Call of Duty is not an RPG. The focus of the game is not on RP. In no way, a player has to question the behaviour of his/her character in the light of the role the character is supposed to exhibit.

Call of Duty is a drawn line. It is as RP as reading poetry.

Again, this is nothing new. All you stated is that video gaming happens through avatars, that should be sufficient to declare that it is RP as avatars have a role and a character in their universe. Neglecting the relationship of the player to its avatar.

RPGs came after acting. If RPGs were that, they could have been called Acting Games or something like that. They were none, something to ponder.

And I still haven't read that definition you always talk about.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem if you think that some games shouldn't be considered RPGs or the other way round. What I can't stand though is this referencing of a definition of the term RPG we all should adhere to without ever providing that definition. If you say this game isn't an RPG in your opinion I don't have any problem at all with the statement. But don't assume that everyone is sharing your idea of RPGs and don't assume that there is some sort of RPG guideline everyone has to follow.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

The definition is read and rejected. It is a different thing.

I gave the definition and am giving it once again:

RPGs are games whose main focus is RP.

Claiming that as avatars in video games are characters, the definition gives all games are RPGs is wrong.


Scene: the player's avatar gets into a car, is driven around to shoot on passers by. The driving background does not put the focus on driving. The core is not driving. Driving is left out of the player's hand.

The opposite now: the player's avatar gets into a car and drives it so that passers by are shot. The shooting background does not put focus on shooting. The core is not shooting. Shooting is left out of the player's hand.

Yet when it comes to games like Call of Duty, these points should be suspended.
Characters in Call of Duty are predetermined in their role and character. The characterization of the avatar toward its role is left out of the player's hand, is premade by the developper and independent of the player's inputs.
And RP, while being out of the player's reach, should be declared the focus of the game.

In the end, very similar to playing a shooting game or a driving game with a bot, no matter the player's inputs, the outcome fits perfectly.

It is very different: the definition was read and rejected on specious grounds.