What can change the nature of Role-Playing Games?

[Jenova65]

But Bioware (as a perfect example) give you all that, my ONLY issue with Bioware is they are very fond of either level capping or making it so that there might as well be a level cap, they taunt you with skills you will never get.
I understand what you are saying, but when RPGs moved to the consoles from the notepad, gaining experience and skills and the whole levelling up concept has been a staple for the average Roleplayer!

Pfft. Bioware games don't have role-playing, they have choice-playing.

Meh, semantics!

No they aren't.

It was an those who complain that all RPGs should be like that, because the genre is called "role playing game". Besides wanting to kill variety it's a stupid idea because the games these people hold as shining examples don't actually even have any role playing.

Also, there's a real difference between choice and role playing. The former is a severly limited poor man's version of the latter. These games have shortcomings and failing to achieve the role playing element they try to rely on is one of them.

Yes it is. And frankly I can't be bothered justifying my original LIGHTHEARTED response anymore as I have games to play and the whole thing is getting tedious and nit picking. My opinion is just that, MINE. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree Which if you read any of my other replies you will see I have no desire for RPGs to be one formula, Jeez......

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Really? I mean sure currently we have hacks like Bioware/Bethesda but if you look at Troika and Black Isle they're writeing was pretty good, more recently look at Bioshock, that game gets across it's plot and themes better than any game I've seen and btter than quite a few films and books, it's able to do this mainly becaus it embraces interactivity.

Yeah, I would much rather have something by Brian Mitsoda or George Ziets than someone poached from the world of Forgotten Realms or Star Wars novels. Ron Gilbert and Tim Shafer's best are also "good enough" in my opinion.

 

[Axeli]

But Bioware (as a perfect example) give you all that, my ONLY issue with Bioware is they are very fond of either level capping or making it so that there might as well be a level cap, they taunt you with skills you will never get.
I understand what you are saying, but when RPGs moved to the consoles from the notepad, gaining experience and skills and the whole levelling up concept has been a staple for the average Roleplayer!

Pfft. Bioware games don't have role-playing, they have choice-playing.

Meh, semantics!

No they aren't.

It was an those who complain that all RPGs should be like that, because the genre is called "role playing game". Besides wanting to kill variety it's a stupid idea because the games these people hold as shining examples don't actually even have any role playing.

Also, there's a real difference between choice and role playing. The former is a severly limited poor man's version of the latter. These games have shortcomings and failing to achieve the role playing element they try to rely on is one of them.

Yes it is. And frankly I can't be bothered justifying my original LIGHTHEARTED response anymore as I have games to play and the whole thing is getting tedious and nit picking. My opinion is just that, MINE. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree Which if you read any of my other replies you will see I have no desire for RPGs to be one formula, Jeez......

I didn't even intend that espeically at your personal opinion, stop taking it personally. Also, read up what semantic means.

 

[Namewithheld]

...when has it been tested before, exactly?

The only time I can remember in recent history that had a book author write a game, it was Advent Rising. Now, Advent Rising was an average shooter (with some bugs) with a remarkably good story. (Or at least one that I liked)

And, I'm not saying that modern games have bad writing. In fact, Dragon Age, Bioshock, other games I'm too lazy to think of right now, have great writing. But...the vast majority of our games have sub-par or amateurish writing.

Is it really so wrong to want...more?

 

[Jenova65]

But Bioware (as a perfect example) give you all that, my ONLY issue with Bioware is they are very fond of either level capping or making it so that there might as well be a level cap, they taunt you with skills you will never get.
I understand what you are saying, but when RPGs moved to the consoles from the notepad, gaining experience and skills and the whole levelling up concept has been a staple for the average Roleplayer!

Pfft. Bioware games don't have role-playing, they have choice-playing.

Meh, semantics!

No they aren't.

It was an those who complain that all RPGs should be like that, because the genre is called "role playing game". Besides wanting to kill variety it's a stupid idea because the games these people hold as shining examples don't actually even have any role playing.

Also, there's a real difference between choice and role playing. The former is a severly limited poor man's version of the latter. These games have shortcomings and failing to achieve the role playing element they try to rely on is one of them.

Yes it is. And frankly I can't be bothered justifying my original LIGHTHEARTED response anymore as I have games to play and the whole thing is getting tedious and nit picking. My opinion is just that, MINE. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree Which if you read any of my other replies you will see I have no desire for RPGs to be one formula, Jeez......

I didn't even intend that espeically at your personal opinion, stop taking it personally. Also, read up what semantic means.

''The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation''
As in role playing/choice playing
You quoted me, I assume you meant it at me. I am not taking it personally, I am just saying we don't agree :S

 

[Adam]

I would like to see proper character interaction between your party. For example in most roleplaying games you usually acquire a band of heroes that you travel with on epic journeys, but you never quiet feel that you are a team. It's rare to see characters interact with each other in a meaningful way. Dragon Age briefly touched upon this by having your characters speak to each other every now and again, but it never goes anywhere and it does not feel as if they are really interacting.

Imagine if they remade Final Fantasy 7, they never will but that's beside the point, imagine every time you used a tent or stayed at an inn you were treated to a few cut scenes where the characters interacted with each other, proper motion capture and facial animation along with stellar voice acting. It would make the party feel a hell of a lot more closer and more like a family than a band of warriors, it would make you feel more towards the character because you would see how they react to the main character as well as other people and even themselves.

That's my only gripe with modern roleplaying games, never quiet feeling that you are with a group. Nowadays it feels more like your traveling with a bunch of tools and mannequins then actual people.

 

[Axeli]

But Bioware (as a perfect example) give you all that, my ONLY issue with Bioware is they are very fond of either level capping or making it so that there might as well be a level cap, they taunt you with skills you will never get.
I understand what you are saying, but when RPGs moved to the consoles from the notepad, gaining experience and skills and the whole levelling up concept has been a staple for the average Roleplayer!

Pfft. Bioware games don't have role-playing, they have choice-playing.

Meh, semantics!

No they aren't.

It was an those who complain that all RPGs should be like that, because the genre is called "role playing game". Besides wanting to kill variety it's a stupid idea because the games these people hold as shining examples don't actually even have any role playing.

Also, there's a real difference between choice and role playing. The former is a severly limited poor man's version of the latter. These games have shortcomings and failing to achieve the role playing element they try to rely on is one of them.

Yes it is. And frankly I can't be bothered justifying my original LIGHTHEARTED response anymore as I have games to play and the whole thing is getting tedious and nit picking. My opinion is just that, MINE. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree Which if you read any of my other replies you will see I have no desire for RPGs to be one formula, Jeez......

I didn't even intend that espeically at your personal opinion, stop taking it personally. Also, read up what semantic means.

''The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation''
As in role playing/choice playing
You quoted me, I assume you meant it at me. I am not taking it personally, I am just saying we don't agree :S

That suggest there's no real differences between the two other semantical ones, which is not the case.

If it was role playing I could design the personality of my character even before starting to play the and succesfully keep him/her in character most of the time. But you cannot. All these games do is keep repeating the few personality choices they have endlessly in many dialogues.
You just have to be glad if there's even some type of personality these options allow your character to have or if the personality choices stay at least consistent, so that when you go with the lighthearted dialogue options to establish the character with that, the game suddenly won't stop giving you them.

It's far from role playing and much closer to make-your-own-adventure book (funnily enough, without letting you affect the story as much as one).

 

[Axolotl]

...when has it been tested before, exactly?

Clive Barker for a start. I remember it's been done a few other times but I can't think of any ofrom the top of my head.

And, I'm not saying that modern games have bad writing. In fact, Dragon Age, Bioshock, other games I'm too lazy to think of right now, have great writing. But...the vast majority of our games have sub-par or amateurish writing.

Is it really so wrong to want...more?

Yes. Most games won't have good dialog or plots. There's a plethora of reasons for this, mainly because games and more specifically RPGs are still experimenting with gameplay (although I realised today that cRPGs are essentially 30 years old this year and we still haven't got decent combat as standard) if something as fundemental as the way a game plays hasn't been hammered out story isn't going to be a high priority. Also I feel that if the whole industry standard for writing went up I fear we would lose some of the beautiful variety we currently enjoy.

 

[Jenova65]

But Bioware (as a perfect example) give you all that, my ONLY issue with Bioware is they are very fond of either level capping or making it so that there might as well be a level cap, they taunt you with skills you will never get.
I understand what you are saying, but when RPGs moved to the consoles from the notepad, gaining experience and skills and the whole levelling up concept has been a staple for the average Roleplayer!

Pfft. Bioware games don't have role-playing, they have choice-playing.

Meh, semantics!

No they aren't.

It was an those who complain that all RPGs should be like that, because the genre is called "role playing game". Besides wanting to kill variety it's a stupid idea because the games these people hold as shining examples don't actually even have any role playing.

Also, there's a real difference between choice and role playing. The former is a severly limited poor man's version of the latter. These games have shortcomings and failing to achieve the role playing element they try to rely on is one of them.

Yes it is. And frankly I can't be bothered justifying my original LIGHTHEARTED response anymore as I have games to play and the whole thing is getting tedious and nit picking. My opinion is just that, MINE. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree Which if you read any of my other replies you will see I have no desire for RPGs to be one formula, Jeez......

I didn't even intend that espeically at your personal opinion, stop taking it personally. Also, read up what semantic means.

''The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation''
As in role playing/choice playing
You quoted me, I assume you meant it at me. I am not taking it personally, I am just saying we don't agree :S

That suggest there's no real differences between the two other semantical ones, which is not the case.

If it was role playing I could design the personality of my character even before starting to play the and succesfully keep him/her in character most of the time. But you cannot. All these games do is keep repeating the few personality choices they have endlessly in many dialogues.
You just have to be glad if there's even some type of personality these options allow your character to have or if the personality choices stay at least consistent, so that when you go with the lighthearted dialogue options to establish the character with that, the game suddenly won't stop giving you them.

It's far from role playing and much closer to make-your-own-adventure book (funnily enough, without letting you affect the story as much as one).

You might as well say abandon games and live your real life if you 'need', that much control, they are games, they are not meant to be so real that you can't see the difference.
Anyway this is getting boring for me, you must feel the same, so I repeat (patiently) we disagree! This is not a problem for me, diversity is good. I hope you have a good day

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Yes, the fact that i want everything to be perfect (even though i didn't say that) clearly means i want crappy games. You really got me there, ha ha.

No. Is it so freakishly creepy of me to enjoy a good game with a story more than a great game without one? Take Dragon Age, for example. Great game, but most of the story was focused on lore. All you did in that game could be summed up like "stop another blight, save Ferelden". Great, so where does Jesus Andraste Christ fit into this? Where's the Blackened City level, the Underground Fortress of Archdemons? The entire game had a massive epic backstory, so much that the main event seemed underwhelming in comparison. I can't replay that game after finishing it because the story's dull and ordinary.
On the other hand, Dragon Age 2 already seems to have great potential for an epic story.

Spoiler

I'm willing to bet that you're gonna play as Morrigan's kid with the taint of the Archdemon in you, trying to find a way to control your power.

I have no interest in Dragon Age so don't know what you are talking about there. I'm still not sure what exactly a game has to do to achieve the necessary level of perfection vs crappyness in your opinion but I am sure that if Bioware work out what it is they can make even more money.

 

[Axeli]

snip

You might as well say abandon games and live your real life if you 'need', that much control, they are games, they are not meant to be so real that you can't see the difference.
Anyway this is getting boring for me, you must feel the same, so I repeat (patiently) we disagree! This is not a problem for me, diversity is good. I hope you have a good day

I am not saying games need to be like that (and I'm just gonna ignore that real life thing you said, it has nothing to do with this), I'm saying that it's silly to praise or mock a game for having or not having role playing in the literal meaning of the word when none of them really do. Even more stupid is definining the video game genre by the literal meaning of "RPG" when there's not gonna be real role playing in them for a long, long time.

 

[Jenova65]

snip

You might as well say abandon games and live your real life if you 'need', that much control, they are games, they are not meant to be so real that you can't see the difference.
Anyway this is getting boring for me, you must feel the same, so I repeat (patiently) we disagree! This is not a problem for me, diversity is good. I hope you have a good day

I am not saying games need to be like that (and I'm just gonna ignore that real life thing you said, it has nothing to do with this), I'm saying that it's silly to praise or mock a game for having or not having role playing in the literal meaning of the word when none of them really do. Even more stupid is definining the video game genre by the literal meaning of "RPG" when there's not gonna be real role playing in them for a long, long time.

I never did any of that.........
And I am leaving you to quote me as much as you want because we are just quibbling with each other now.
*Walks off enigmatically*
;-)

 

[Axeli]

snip

You might as well say abandon games and live your real life if you 'need', that much control, they are games, they are not meant to be so real that you can't see the difference.
Anyway this is getting boring for me, you must feel the same, so I repeat (patiently) we disagree! This is not a problem for me, diversity is good. I hope you have a good day

I am not saying games need to be like that (and I'm just gonna ignore that real life thing you said, it has nothing to do with this), I'm saying that it's silly to praise or mock a game for having or not having role playing in the literal meaning of the word when none of them really do. Even more stupid is definining the video game genre by the literal meaning of "RPG" when there's not gonna be real role playing in them for a long, long time.

I never did any of that.........
And I am leaving you to quote me as much as you want because we are just quibbling with each other now.
*Walks off enigmatically*
;-)

Quibbling is what you might be doing then, but I'm explaining my point to you. And nor am I suggesting you did those things. Just why I pointed out the difference between choice and role playing in the first place

 

[Jenova65]

snip

You might as well say abandon games and live your real life if you 'need', that much control, they are games, they are not meant to be so real that you can't see the difference.
Anyway this is getting boring for me, you must feel the same, so I repeat (patiently) we disagree! This is not a problem for me, diversity is good. I hope you have a good day

I am not saying games need to be like that (and I'm just gonna ignore that real life thing you said, it has nothing to do with this), I'm saying that it's silly to praise or mock a game for having or not having role playing in the literal meaning of the word when none of them really do. Even more stupid is definining the video game genre by the literal meaning of "RPG" when there's not gonna be real role playing in them for a long, long time.

I never did any of that.........
And I am leaving you to quote me as much as you want because we are just quibbling with each other now.
*Walks off enigmatically*
;-)

Quibbling is what you might be doing then, but I'm explaining my point to you. And nor am I suggesting you did those things. Just why I pointed out the difference between choice and role playing in the first place

I am actually ROFL'ing at that.

 

[Axeli]

snip

You might as well say abandon games and live your real life if you 'need', that much control, they are games, they are not meant to be so real that you can't see the difference.
Anyway this is getting boring for me, you must feel the same, so I repeat (patiently) we disagree! This is not a problem for me, diversity is good. I hope you have a good day

I am not saying games need to be like that (and I'm just gonna ignore that real life thing you said, it has nothing to do with this), I'm saying that it's silly to praise or mock a game for having or not having role playing in the literal meaning of the word when none of them really do. Even more stupid is definining the video game genre by the literal meaning of "RPG" when there's not gonna be real role playing in them for a long, long time.

I never did any of that.........
And I am leaving you to quote me as much as you want because we are just quibbling with each other now.
*Walks off enigmatically*
;-)

Quibbling is what you might be doing then, but I'm explaining my point to you. And nor am I suggesting you did those things. Just why I pointed out the difference between choice and role playing in the first place

I am actually ROFL'ing at that.

Care to explain?

 

[Jenova65]

snip

You might as well say abandon games and live your real life if you 'need', that much control, they are games, they are not meant to be so real that you can't see the difference.
Anyway this is getting boring for me, you must feel the same, so I repeat (patiently) we disagree! This is not a problem for me, diversity is good. I hope you have a good day

I am not saying games need to be like that (and I'm just gonna ignore that real life thing you said, it has nothing to do with this), I'm saying that it's silly to praise or mock a game for having or not having role playing in the literal meaning of the word when none of them really do. Even more stupid is definining the video game genre by the literal meaning of "RPG" when there's not gonna be real role playing in them for a long, long time.

I never did any of that.........
And I am leaving you to quote me as much as you want because we are just quibbling with each other now.
*Walks off enigmatically*
;-)

Quibbling is what you might be doing then, but I'm explaining my point to you. And nor am I suggesting you did those things. Just why I pointed out the difference between choice and role playing in the first place

I am actually ROFL'ing at that.

Care to explain?

No!
Move on and let go of it
EDIT - I am not being rude there, just none of this is contributing to the thread imo, so I am just gonna stop replying

 

[Axeli]

snip

You might as well say abandon games and live your real life if you 'need', that much control, they are games, they are not meant to be so real that you can't see the difference.
Anyway this is getting boring for me, you must feel the same, so I repeat (patiently) we disagree! This is not a problem for me, diversity is good. I hope you have a good day

I am not saying games need to be like that (and I'm just gonna ignore that real life thing you said, it has nothing to do with this), I'm saying that it's silly to praise or mock a game for having or not having role playing in the literal meaning of the word when none of them really do. Even more stupid is definining the video game genre by the literal meaning of "RPG" when there's not gonna be real role playing in them for a long, long time.

I never did any of that.........
And I am leaving you to quote me as much as you want because we are just quibbling with each other now.
*Walks off enigmatically*
;-)

Quibbling is what you might be doing then, but I'm explaining my point to you. And nor am I suggesting you did those things. Just why I pointed out the difference between choice and role playing in the first place

I am actually ROFL'ing at that.

Care to explain?

No!
Move on and let go of it

For someone saying that you sure are insistent on getting the last laugh so to speak. You can't make an argument but in the same breath say that you don't want to argue and that the other guy should shut up now, which is what you were doing a post or two back.
But fine, if you want to be childish about it, then be.

 

[JonnoStrife]

Here we go!

1)Top down view with an option of first person is always nice.
2)Turn-Based or real time doesn't really bother me. I like Dragon Quest 8 as my favourite game ever, but i like turn based with the illusion of real time.
3 and 5)I think you can have both epic story line and choice but want good narrative and that means a fair bit of dialogue but it can't over shadow the action.
4)What they did in Assassins Creed 2 with the Villa was awesome so if there was a deeper version of that, then it would be awesome (if it didn't get as shit as Fable 2's attempt was.

Also I think more WoW like things could be incorporated into the regular RPG.