No, it means that you don't need rules to role-play. That's all. Obviously Gygax knew that because he created RPGs by creating a wargame suitable for role-playing with. It's a painfully easy concept to grasp and I absolutely love it when people post that quote.Originally Posted by Nalano
Last edited by Wizardry; 11-04-2012 at 01:24 AM.
Man, who cares? I've never seen Wizardry arguing about how TRPG rules system A is better than RPG rules system B. CRPG's obviously need rules in order to exist as games.
Last edited by JackShandy; 11-04-2012 at 05:50 AM.
Pretty much - PnP RPGs are not CRPGs. The limitations of the latter means that the only way you can squeeze an ounce of the nuance and flexibility that makes its analogue father what it is, is by saturating the whole affair with rules.
Rules-free PnP RPGs have the most complex and elaborate set of rules possible, and a processor that can run 'em.
Keep digging youself a deeper hole thinking that you're going to hit gold there Wizardry. Also the RPG arose out of skirmish rules, where Gygax hit on the idea to have a campaign and survivors from the fights gained experience and abilities and therefore 'characters' replaced 'unit' and thus started the ball rolling on games being interactive storytelling experiences.
Wizardry always argues that any and all interactions in a cRPG have to be stat based for it to qualify as an RPG. That the very guy who invented RPGs doesn't subscribe to that anal way of thinking completely undermines Wizardy's position. The change in format from P&P to computer doesn't change that fundamental truth to the nature of the RPG.
Last edited by Kadayi; 11-04-2012 at 05:48 PM.
Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi
Probable Replicant
*blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me
How did this thread get to eleven pages... ? Dragon Age 2 is a poor game. Thread, End of.
Show me a videogame without number-based interaction and I'll agree with you.
(It counts as number-based whether or not they show you the numbers).
edit: Actually, your whole position would be flawed even if the central premise was possible. Haven't you ever heard of Death of the Author? We wouldn't have to redefine the industry if Miyamoto came out and said platformers aren't about jumping.
Last edited by JackShandy; 11-04-2012 at 08:24 AM.
A simulation of combat (Skyrim) as opposed to a model of combat (D&D and offsrping cRPGs) are, though both 'number based' still not commensurate.
Models allow for more metagaming and, arguably, more freeform roleplaying (as one is not bound by ones own abilities to, say, time the whacking of a mudcrab with a shortsword). Simulations tend to provide a more immediate and immersive gaming experience. It's a preference of the player, one which Wizardry has vocal (and often not totally disagreable) opinions on; and which is worth discussing.
Whether or not model or simulation approaches do or do not classify the game as an (c)RPG is probably the most boring discussion ever. As almost all classificatory discussions are. It's a shame discussions with Wizardry so often descend into that; because otherwise there's interesting ground to be covered.
Because we're not talking about Dragon Age anymore.
Opinions Vs Facts learn the difference.
Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi GFWL: Kadayi
Probable Replicant
*blush* I'm flattered by the attention boys, but please let's not make the thread about liddle old me
I enjoyed it. I'm not the only one. Also, the point of this thread was to discuss DA2 as a whole entity, which included many responses of why people thought it was poor. I don't think anyone here has defended it 100% - that would probably be impossible, but that doesn't mean it's 'poor'. Much less so, it doesn't mean your thoughts on it are the be all.
Funny, that.
I enjoyed it too, and I would also like to point out that nothing is perfect. But we're glad people at least try, and DA2 still stood on its own feet. Hell, it's all about the attitude. For example, check out this review of Kane & Lynch 2. I especially love the end:
The market says: I want, and most companies produce games tailored to these wants.
Dog Days says: fuck you, this is what you want, look at what you want, asshole.
Because even though it's an average game, it's an interesting one.
You make a great point. While there are certainly plenty of bad things to say about DA2--and I can absolutely see why someone would hate it because of the combat--there are clearly areas into which the devs poured a lot of effort. The sheer amount of well-written character work is astounding compared to any other game out there. It's clear that the DA2 team had a very different set of priorities than a lot of the fans, but that doesn't mean that they slacked off or didn't do good work.
In the words of Yahtzee Croshaw, "The writing's solid, but then Bioware don't score points for that anymore. Birds fly, fish swim, Michael Atkinson molests dogs and Bioware games have good writing."
That was for ME2. DA2 was "it's hard to dislike [your companions], though, because the extensive dialogues between party members was one of the few areas that haven't been skimped on." ME3 was simply "yes, rich universe, well put-together story, blah blah Bioware blah"
No, Dragon Age 2 is crap.
It's just that there is so little competition in the AAA budget western RPG genre that it looks good. Bioware has become Squaresoft, a super high budget studio whose absolute best is slightly above average but unfortunately theres no Nippon Ichi, From or Atlus to compare them to.
There is some opposition appearing like Bethesda, CD Projeckt and Obsidian. But Bethesda has increasingly moved into pure sandbox action the past few years, CD Projeckt spend three years between releases and Obsidian have their own issues.
Is Dragon Age 2 crap? No, it's not. Anyone who says that hasn't played it - I'll admit that I was wrong about Dragon Age 2.
It's far from perfect, though. It overuses environments, it has varying texture quality (even with the HD pack) and a lot of the quests are very much Skyrim-esque back-and-forth parcel jobs. But in there is a good game, and one I'm enjoying more than any BioWare game I can think of. It does show BioWare's flaws. It shows they suck at animations, at cutscenes, at expressions, but what's there kinda works.
DA2 isn't the best RPG ever. It doesn't try to be. But what it is? It's a game that tried something different. It stopped the "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World" aspect, and instead turned around into a character piece with a focus on personal relationships, racial tension and a cute-as-fuck Elf with a Welsh accent.
For that aspect alone, DA2 is the single best RPG in recent years.
But if you go in expecting a traditional BioWare game - which it is in some ways - or something like Origins, you'll be disappointed. So go in with an open mind, distance yourself beforehand if you must. But it's worth it, and this is coming from someone who was very much against DA2 initially.
I want more like this, and less like ME.
I'll be honest, I'm happy to play crap games my entire life if enjoy playing them, like I did with DA2.
As I said the characters add nothing to the actual story and your character still ends up as the big world saving hero. If you think this is trying something different then the genre really is in dire straights.
The genre is in dire straits regardless of DA2's existence.
I have my own issues with sequels altogether. If they can at all help it, I want them to avoid "like X" and try something new every time. DA2 was different for exactly what you said - they tossed the whole "save teh world" storyline and tried something else. Did it work? Eh. But they tried! And I appreciate that.
And then they got shat upon for trying, 'cause the prevailing opinion then became "OMG IT'S CRAP IT HAS NO PLOT"
Between that and their ME3 ending, the message I think Bioware are getting from their fans are "don't you ever try anything new, because we will punish you. We will punish you and we have no boundaries to how far we go."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
