Vykromond
Scholar
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 341
RE: PennyAnte ~ RE: Vault Dweller
Did you just say this to get in a cheap shot at MW? What does the word "lots" have to do with the word "variety"? When did any of the VD5 (or the other respondents to the Role-Playing section of the Gamasutra feature) talk about "lots of characters"? I see "dynamic characters," "characters that you will grow attached to on an emotional level," etc. Hell, even the Final Fantasy 6 kid that we agree is stupid said "variety of characters," not "lots of characters." (I just noticed that the Final Fantasy 6 kid isn't even part of the VD5; another person who answered with the Final Fantasy series is, whose response isn't as egregious, though he says some stupid things, is.)
Except it's not. Of the VD5, respondent 2 gave what I think is a good response (of course, VD's excerpt tossed out "numerous character development options..." (choice!) "including one of the best good/evil systems I have ever played," (choice!) "[ . . . ] a world full of life with characters that you will grow attached to on an emotional level" (depth!)). Respondent 3, the EA guy, gave a response that you were fine with, despite his baffling awe of party-based RPGs. Respondent #4 cited "world-affecting decisions" and "robust character creation" among his list of reasons for liking the BG series, which are good reasons. Whether you think the games succeeded in these aspects is beside the point. Respondent #5 approaches the concept of choice through the avenue of not being constricted to a certain path- nonlinearity. Of course, this approaches the freedom vs. choice-making problem discussed elsewhere in this thread, but regardless, it's not stupid.
No no no no no no no no. The point of the article was to see what people thought. That's what people think. There are retards (Ogre Battle 64?) and there are a lot of people that, while not CODEX-STYLE XPERTS, are not morons and don't deserve to be treated as such arbitrarily.
~
Hah. Champion of the idiots. I like it.
No idea, what are those? In all seriousness, many adventure games (definitely the commonly-understood "genre-defining ones" a la MI1 and 2, Grim Fandango, etc.) have a very different concept of story (not to mention a common shunting aside of the "epic story" albatross) as compared to RPGs. On a related note: Why do you think some of the VD5 give lists of characteristics? Because they probably recognized that alone, none of the characteristics necessarily qualify an RPG- they had the same internal dialogue that you're externalising in some of your points in this thread. I don't think that's moronic.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean... aren't dungeon crawlers RPGs? They certainly are by your definition; they have stats, don't they?
I'm not sure which FPSes you're referring to, but I would venture that those RPGs sure aren't the genre-defining ones in your opinion or in the VD5s', which is something you and the morons have in common.
What was the story in Crime and Punishment again? Kill this old woman and stew about it for a while? Putting things into capsule form for the sake of absurdism isn't a worthwhile way to approach the "detailed-story, undetailed-story" divide at all.
They're still pretty well-written, aren't they? (You're actually probably going to say no, I guess.)
EDIT: Forgot one thing I meant to comment upon in this post.
Really? Which ones are those? (genuinely curious, here)
PennyAnte said:Lots of characters don't neccessarily = depth. Morrowind, anyone?
Did you just say this to get in a cheap shot at MW? What does the word "lots" have to do with the word "variety"? When did any of the VD5 (or the other respondents to the Role-Playing section of the Gamasutra feature) talk about "lots of characters"? I see "dynamic characters," "characters that you will grow attached to on an emotional level," etc. Hell, even the Final Fantasy 6 kid that we agree is stupid said "variety of characters," not "lots of characters." (I just noticed that the Final Fantasy 6 kid isn't even part of the VD5; another person who answered with the Final Fantasy series is, whose response isn't as egregious, though he says some stupid things, is.)
The main point is the stupidometer is way over into the red here.
Except it's not. Of the VD5, respondent 2 gave what I think is a good response (of course, VD's excerpt tossed out "numerous character development options..." (choice!) "including one of the best good/evil systems I have ever played," (choice!) "[ . . . ] a world full of life with characters that you will grow attached to on an emotional level" (depth!)). Respondent 3, the EA guy, gave a response that you were fine with, despite his baffling awe of party-based RPGs. Respondent #4 cited "world-affecting decisions" and "robust character creation" among his list of reasons for liking the BG series, which are good reasons. Whether you think the games succeeded in these aspects is beside the point. Respondent #5 approaches the concept of choice through the avenue of not being constricted to a certain path- nonlinearity. Of course, this approaches the freedom vs. choice-making problem discussed elsewhere in this thread, but regardless, it's not stupid.
PennyAnte said:GamaSutra should have known better than to publish it.
No no no no no no no no. The point of the article was to see what people thought. That's what people think. There are retards (Ogre Battle 64?) and there are a lot of people that, while not CODEX-STYLE XPERTS, are not morons and don't deserve to be treated as such arbitrarily.
~
Vault Dweller said:A new champion has risen!
Hah. Champion of the idiots. I like it.
Ever heard about adventure games?
No idea, what are those? In all seriousness, many adventure games (definitely the commonly-understood "genre-defining ones" a la MI1 and 2, Grim Fandango, etc.) have a very different concept of story (not to mention a common shunting aside of the "epic story" albatross) as compared to RPGs. On a related note: Why do you think some of the VD5 give lists of characteristics? Because they probably recognized that alone, none of the characteristics necessarily qualify an RPG- they had the same internal dialogue that you're externalising in some of your points in this thread. I don't think that's moronic.
Played any story-less dungeon crawlers lately?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean... aren't dungeon crawlers RPGs? They certainly are by your definition; they have stats, don't they?
Btw, I have seen some FPS with more detailed & interesting stories than in most RPGs.
I'm not sure which FPSes you're referring to, but I would venture that those RPGs sure aren't the genre-defining ones in your opinion or in the VD5s', which is something you and the morons have in common.
What was the story in Fallout again? Find a chip and stop them mutants?
What was the story in Crime and Punishment again? Kill this old woman and stew about it for a while? Putting things into capsule form for the sake of absurdism isn't a worthwhile way to approach the "detailed-story, undetailed-story" divide at all.
Bio's infamous "find 4 itamz" storylines?
They're still pretty well-written, aren't they? (You're actually probably going to say no, I guess.)
EDIT: Forgot one thing I meant to comment upon in this post.
Essentially, you're saying that these people are idiots for not realising that the only actual RPG hallmark is choice-making, which- though it seems obvious to you- is actually a very refined way to approach the concept.
I agree, it's a refined way and I didn't expect to hear that. There are other, more easily recognizable traits that even stupid people may notice. Or so I haughtily thought.
Really? Which ones are those? (genuinely curious, here)