An RPG in 2023 with a mute protagonist???

[Miauzi]

Vor 4 Stunden sagte Kaxat:

 

1 Apfel entspricht der Menge einer Orange. Das ist Wissenschaft. Eigentlich Mathematik. Aber ist 1 Apfel besser als 1 Orange? Sind 12 Äpfel besser als 10 Orangen? Dies ist der Vergleich, den Sie durchführen. Und daraus wird versucht, eine „Tatsache“ zu behaupten. Der Rest Ihres Beitrags ist nur eine kämpferische und umständliche Argumentation. Sie scheinen kein Interesse daran zu haben, die Meinung derjenigen zu verstehen, die Rollenspiele lieben. Sagen Sie einfach, dass ihre Meinung unbegründet ist. Deshalb entschuldige ich mich für die Auseinandersetzung mit Ihnen. Bleiben Sie Ihrer Meinung so sicher, wie Sie möchten. Ich werde nicht länger versuchen, Sie vom Wert anderer Standpunkte zu überzeugen.

 

The problem I have with people like you is that you presume to define what others consider to be role-playing.

And only your own definition counts - as you impressively prove here.

For people like me it doesn't matter if the "protagonist" has his own voice or not - that has never been part of my decision to buy a game.

Personally, I'm fine with it ... because I have a flexible mind.

Whether I buy an RPG game depends on completely different things ... but I just move outside the usual "black and white" world of many people.

[DocClox]

On 7/24/2023 at 5:18 AM, Miauzi said:

I always find it funny when people tell me what they think an RPG is...

 

Ah, one of my pet topics! Let me tell you what I think!

 

RPGs came from the pencil and paper games, most notably Dungeons and Dragons. D&D itself arose from tabletop miniatures gaming, where you might recreate (say) The Battle Of Waterloo with one lead figure representing ten or one hundred troops. From there came the Chainmail rules that had a 1:1 ratio for figures to troops and introduced elements of fantasy: monsters, spells, character classes. And Chainmail rapidly evolved into D&D one of the first role-playing games.

 

This is important, because it tells us some things about what a role-playing game was not, at least in the eye of those who helped invent the genre. It wasn't about classes and levels and progression: Chainmail had that. And it wasn't about playing a predefined role. The miniatures games might have let you occupy the role of Napoleon or Wellington, but no one calls those game role-playing games. No, the innovations that defined role-playing games as a genre back then was that you created a character using the rules and the setting, and then you took on that role in the game.

 

This was the important thing. This was the distinction that made role-playing games new and unique.

 

Fast forward fifteen or so years and enthusiasts are starting to look at their home computers and wonder how they can replicate the role-playing hobby in software. At the time, networking was inadequate to replicate the social aspect of the hobby, and there was no way the AI techniques of the time could replace a human Dungeon Master. So they made games using the parts of the hobby they could reproduce and built games using the classes and levels and spells and monsters that were such a mainstay of the tabletop genre. And they called them role-playing games because that was as close it was possible to get with the technology of the time. And most people understood that and were content. It was Close Enough.

 

Fast forward another fifteen years. There's a generation of kids that have grown up for whom the only role-playing they've ever seen has involved predefined characters and levels, spells, monsters, etc. So, naturally, they've come to think of these things as the defining elements of an RPG rather than as fluff used to support actual role-play in the original pastime. Additionally, "role-playing" games have proven popular enough that marketing and advertising types have started applying the label to everything from weepy kinetic novels to management sims. Anything with a protagonist, explicit or implied, can now (apparently) be described as a role-playing game, and the term has become so broad as to be meaningless.

 

And so I will take my definition from the origins of the hobby; from the pencil and paper days. A role-plying game for me is one where I can create the character. I get to decide backstory and motivations, morality and reactions. I get to decide how my character feels. The game's duties are to lay out a world and events with which I can interact and to adjudicate that world's reactions to my actions.

 

That is why, in my book, games like The Witcher and Mass Effect may be good games and good fun, but they can never be role-playing games. And that is why I find Fallout 4's player VA to be an impediment to my role-playing. Not because it stops me gaining levels or taking perks or deciding which gun to use on the next molerat,  but because it interferes with the character conception in my head. The ability to choose and play as a character of my creation is the thing that most of all sets Bethesda apart from their rivals, and it is something I value greatly.

 

OK. Wow. I think I'm about done. For anyone who made it to this point, thank you for your kind attention.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by DocClox

[Miauzi]

37 minutes ago, DocClox said:

 

Ah, eines meiner Lieblingsthemen! Lassen Sie mich Ihnen sagen, was ich denke!

 

RPGs stammen aus den Bleistift- und Papierspielen, insbesondere Dungeons and Dragons. D&D selbst entstand aus Tabletop-Miniaturspielen, bei denen man beispielsweise die Schlacht von Waterloo nachbilden konnte, wobei eine Hauptfigur zehn oder hundert Truppen repräsentierte. Von dort kamen die Chainmail-Regeln, die ein 1:1-Verhältnis für Figuren zu Truppen vorsahen und Elemente der Fantasie einführten: Monster, Zaubersprüche, Charakterklassen. Und Chainmail entwickelte sich schnell zu D&D, einem der ersten Rollenspiele.

 

Das ist wichtig, denn es verrät uns einiges darüber, was ein Rollenspiel nicht war , zumindest in den Augen derjenigen, die das Genre miterfunden haben. Es ging nicht um Klassen, Level und Fortschritt: Chainmail hatte das. Und es ging nicht darum, eine vordefinierte Rolle zu spielen. Bei den Miniaturspielen hätte man vielleicht in die Rolle von Napoleon oder Wellington schlüpfen können, aber niemand nennt diese Spiele Rollenspiele. Nein, die Innovation, die Rollenspiele damals als Genre definierte, bestand darin, dass man anhand der Regeln und des Setting einen Charakter erstellte und dann diese Rolle im Spiel übernahm .

 

Das war das Wichtigste. Dies war der Unterschied, der Rollenspiele neu und einzigartig machte.

 

Etwa fünfzehn Jahre später beginnen Enthusiasten, sich ihre Heimcomputer anzusehen und sich zu fragen, wie sie das Rollenspiel-Hobby auf einem Computer nachbilden können. Damals reichte die Vernetzung nicht aus, um den sozialen Aspekt des Hobbys nachzubilden, und die damaligen KI-Techniken konnten einen menschlichen Dungeon Master auf keinen Fall ersetzen. Also machten sie Spiele mit den Teilen des Hobbys, die sie reproduzieren konnten , und bauten Spiele mit den Klassen, Levels, Zaubersprüchen und Monstern, die so eine tragende Säule des Tabletop-Genres waren. Und sie nannten sie Rollenspiele, weil sie der Technologie der damaligen Zeit am nächsten kamen. Und die meisten Leute haben das verstanden und waren zufrieden. Es war nah genug.

 

Noch fünfzehn Jahre später. Es gibt eine Generation von Kindern, die aufgewachsen sind und für die das einzige Rollenspiel, das sie je gesehen haben, vordefinierte Charaktere und Level, Zaubersprüche, Monster usw. beinhaltete. Daher betrachten sie diese Dinge natürlich als die bestimmenden Elemente eines Rollenspiels und nicht als die Elemente, die zur Unterstützung des tatsächlichen Rollenspiels im ursprünglichen Zeitvertreib verwendet werden. Darüber hinaus erfreuen sich „Rollenspiele“ so großer Beliebtheit, dass Marketing- und Werbefachleute damit begonnen haben, alles, von weinerlichen Bewegungsromanen bis hin zu Managementsimulationen, mit dem Label zu versehen. Alles, was explizit oder implizit einen Protagonisten hat, kann mittlerweile (anscheinend) als Rollenspiel bezeichnet werden, und der Begriff ist so weit gefasst, dass er bedeutungslos ist.

 

Deshalb werde ich meine Definition von den Ursprüngen des Hobbys übernehmen; aus der Zeit mit Bleistift und Papier. Ein Rollenspiel ist für mich eines, bei dem ich den Charakter erschaffen kann. Ich kann über Hintergrundgeschichte und Motivationen, Moral und Reaktionen entscheiden. Ich kann entscheiden, wie sich mein Charakter anfühlt. Die Aufgabe des Spiels besteht darin, eine Welt und Ereignisse zu entwerfen, mit denen ich interagieren kann, und über die Reaktionen dieser Welt auf meine Handlungen zu entscheiden.

 

Aus diesem Grund sind meiner Meinung nach Spiele wie The Witcher und Mass Effect zwar gute Spiele und machen viel Spaß, aber sie können niemals Rollenspiele sein. Und deshalb empfinde ich die Spieler-VA von Fallout 4 als Hindernis für mein Rollenspiel. Nicht, weil es mich davon abhält, Stufen zu erreichen, Vergünstigungen in Anspruch zu nehmen oder zu entscheiden, welche Waffe ich beim nächsten Molerat einsetzen soll, sondern weil es die Charaktervorstellung in meinem Kopf beeinträchtigt. Die Möglichkeit, einen von mir geschaffenen Charakter auszuwählen und zu spielen, ist das Einzige, was Bethesda am meisten von seinen Konkurrenten unterscheidet, und das ist etwas, das ich sehr schätze.

 

OK. Wow. Ich glaube, ich bin fast fertig. Wir danken allen, die es bis hierher geschafft haben, für Ihre freundliche Aufmerksamkeit.

 

 

Well - then, according to this strict "definition", no Bugdesta game is even remotely an RPG ... because the very existence of a main story completely undermines the "real and true" RPG character.

What does an RPG player do? He ignores the main story and does his own thing! Right??

I do ... I haven't given a shit about Alduin for 10 years!

And I also don't give a shit if my character has his own voice or not!

Yes, but the immersion doesn't work at all ... it makes it less fun ... MIMIMIMI

From my PERSONAL point of view, a topic of the importance of a mosquito is turned into a game-buying elephant!

What really completely bugs me about fallout 4? -> that the building system for settlements is such a piece of crap

more than 1/3 of my motivation is gone ... because it restricts my free playing massively.

 

---

davon mal abgesehen ... ich habe schon 1985 auf dem "Bortkasten" meine ersten Spiele gezockt

 

 

[DocClox]

47 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

 

Well - then, according to this strict "definition",

 

It's the definition I use when I talk about RPGs, and I think it's more useful than many in current circulation since it actually tells you something definite about the game it describes.

 

47 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

no Bugdesta game is even remotely an RPG ... because the very existence of a main story completely undermines the "real and true" RPG character.

 

Ooh! Hard disagree!

 

If you go back to the tabletop D&D games, those campaigns often had main stories, or at least they did if the DM was any good and if the players wanted that. The game provides setting and events, and it adjudicates the response of the world to my actions. Nothing in what Bethesda does runs contrary to that.

 

[edit]

 

By way of evidence, look at the Queen of the Spiders module. It gave a campaign story starting with a raid on a hill giant fort and ending up facing the Demon Queen, Lolth. At no point does the module require you play any particular character, or to have any particular motivation.

 

47 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

What does an RPG player do? He ignores the main story and does his own thing! Right??

 

Fine. Ideal, in fact. The story is there if you want it, or you can ignore it and do your own thing.

 

47 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

Yes, but the immersion doesn't work at all ... it makes it less fun ... MIMIMIMI

From my PERSONAL point of view, a topic of the importance of a mosquito is turned into a game-buying elephant!

 

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

 

47 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

What really completely bugs me about fallout 4? -> that the building system for settlements is such a piece of crap

more than 1/3 of my motivation is gone ... because it restricts my free playing massively.

 

 

Well OK. The player VA is far from the only failing of Fallout 4. Although the settlement building stopped bugging me a long time ago. That said, it's a long time since I had an urge to build anything non-trivial in a settlement so go figure.

Edited July 24, 2023 by DocClox

[Miauzi]

Vor 8 Minuten sagte DocClox:

 

Es ist die Definition, die ich verwende, wenn ich über Rollenspiele spreche, und ich denke, sie ist nützlicher als viele andere, die derzeit im Umlauf sind, da sie einem tatsächlich etwas Bestimmtes über das Spiel sagt, das sie beschreibt.

 

 

Oh! Harter Widerspruch!

 

Wenn Sie auf die Tabletop-D&D-Spiele zurückkommen, hatten diese Kampagnen oft Hauptgeschichten, oder zumindest hatten sie eine, wenn die DM gut war und die Spieler das wollten. Das Spiel liefert Schauplätze und Ereignisse und entscheidet über die Reaktion der Welt auf meine Handlungen. Nichts an dem, was Bethesda tut, steht dem entgegen.

 

 

Bußgeld. Eigentlich ideal. Die Geschichte ist da, wenn Sie sie wollen, oder Sie können sie ignorieren und Ihr eigenes Ding machen.

 

 

Ich habe keine Ahnung, was Sie hier meinen.

 

 

Gut, ok. Die Spieler-VA ist bei weitem nicht das einzige Manko von Fallout 4. Allerdings stört mich das Siedlungsgebäude schon lange nicht mehr. Allerdings ist es schon lange her, dass ich den Drang verspürte, in einer Siedlung etwas zu bauen, das nicht trivial ist, also denken Sie mal darüber nach.

 

Yes, I know that they have developed mods for settlements in Fallout 4 - I use these and also write about these devices in my blog story.

Spoiler

 

In order for anything to be manageable in my sense ... I have to build a "Vault" ... above ground everything is pretty rubbish

and "homemaker" (the mod has been abandoned in the meantime) makes settlements with which I am satisfied - but it shatters the construction menu for the "Vaults".

But it took several years until you could build something halfway acceptable in Fallout thanks to mods. The basic system is complete rubbish.

Mods are good ... as long as there is an author who maintains his work. But if the author stops ... you can't use these mods as a "NON-programmer" any more - and fall back to ZERO.

 

---

I already know how "pen-and-paper" works - but they were always -> group games.

Alone, this makes no sense at all - at least not for me.

But since computer games were developed in the majority for solo operation and still are today ... the original idea is invalid anyway!

And now it also depends on the personality of the player in question - how much FREME assistance he now needs to live out his fanaticism.

But here I don't see a uniform community of players ... but rather a "cluster" formation.

There are players who MUST be taken by the hand very intensively - who are already absolutely helpless without a quest pointer and quickly fall into a massive aggression (see various comments here in the forum ...). when a mod author "dares" to make a quest mod without a quest pointer).

Other players want the total "sandbox" ... why do you think games like "Minecraft" or "Dwarf Fortress" have become such a success.

The space game Elite, as a multi-player game, has a comparable approach without a "main quest" with a rather daring "red thread".

So you don't have to take part in the war against these aliens at all - it does have some repercussions - but otherwise you can do your proverbial "boot" anyway!

 

---

 

What was the reason for this thread again?

oh yes ... purchase decisions

for one person it is not possible - that the protagonist has no voice of his own ... for the other one it is one of the main criteria to buy it.

for me this has never been the criterion to buy a game or to leave it on the "shop shelf"!

That's why I think it's all "mimi" aka "whining".

 

[DocClox]

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

Yes, I know that they have developed mods for settlements in Fallout 4 - I use these and also write about these devices in my blog story.

 

And don't think I don't appreciate the shout-out for RRS

 

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

The basic system is complete rubbish.

 

Oh yeah. None of the settlements I've enjoyed building would have been possible without mods.

 

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

I already know how "pen-and-paper" works - but they were always -> group games.

Alone, this makes no sense at all - at least not for me.

 

But you will, I hope concede that the role playing part wasn't the multi-player part. I mean Monopoly is a multi-player game, but no-one ever insisted on calling that role-playing.

 

So switching to single player should not invalidate the definition.

 

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

But since computer games were developed in the majority for solo operation and still are today ... the original idea is invalid anyway!

 

In much the same was as Soccer is a group game with eleven players a side, and so therefore we can add guns and landmines to the FIFA games because the original idea is invalid?

 

I honestly think you're reaching here.

 

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

There are players who MUST be taken by the hand very intensively - who are already absolutely helpless without a quest pointer and quickly fall into a massive aggression (see various comments here in the forum ...). when a mod author "dares" to make a quest mod without a quest pointer).

 

 

Hmm... I defined what I thought of as Role-Playing, but not what I consider a role-playing game, I see.

 

I judge the merit of a Role playing game by the degree of support it offers to role-players.  It's not an absolute value. There are games that offer excellent role-play support to the player, games that offer none, and all points in-between.  Just because a game allows players not to role play if they want, that doesn't disqualify it as an RPG.

 

Similarly, having a main story doesn't prevent role-playing, so long as the players are free to either ignore it, or invent their one reasons for joining in. People always complain about Skyrim forcing them to be good guys, for instance, but I've always been quite happy playing a complete bastard who saves the world because he hasn't finished using it. Alduin can have his chew toy back when I'm good and ready and not before!

Edited July 24, 2023 by DocClox

[Jellyfish505]

10 hours ago, Gameplayer said:

Gotta find some voice lines on Pornhub, to dub for my main character.

 

Thread winner ?

[Miauzi]

45 minutes ago, DocClox said:

 

Und denken Sie nicht, dass ich das Lob für RRS nicht schätze

 

 

Oh ja. Keine der Siedlungen, die ich gerne gebaut habe, wäre ohne Mods möglich gewesen.

 

 

Aber ich hoffe, Sie werden zugeben, dass der Rollenspielteil nicht der Mehrspielerteil war. Ich meine, Monopoly ist ein Multiplayer-Spiel, aber niemand hat jemals darauf bestanden, es Rollenspiel zu nennen.

 

Der Wechsel zum Einzelspielermodus sollte die Definition also nicht ungültig machen.

 

 

Im Großen und Ganzen ist es so, dass Fußball ein Gruppenspiel mit elf Spielern pro Mannschaft ist und wir daher Waffen und Landminen zu den FIFA-Spielen hinzufügen können, weil die ursprüngliche Idee ungültig ist?

 

Ich glaube ehrlich gesagt, dass Sie hier ankommen.

 

 

Hmm... Ich habe definiert, was ich als Rollenspiel betrachte, aber nicht, was ich als Rollenspiel betrachte, wie ich sehe.

 

Ich beurteile den Wert eines Rollenspiels danach, wie viel Unterstützung es den Rollenspielern bietet. Es handelt sich nicht um einen absoluten Wert. Es gibt Spiele, die dem Spieler hervorragende Rollenspielunterstützung bieten, Spiele, die keine bieten, und alle Punkte dazwischen. Nur weil ein Spiel den Spielern erlaubt, keine Rollenspiele zu spielen, wenn sie das wollen, bedeutet das nicht, dass es sich um ein Rollenspiel handelt.

 

Ebenso verhindert eine Hauptgeschichte nicht das Rollenspiel, solange es den Spielern freisteht, sie entweder zu ignorieren oder ihre einzigen Gründe für das Mitmachen zu erfinden. Die Leute beschweren sich zum Beispiel immer darüber, dass Skyrim sie dazu zwingt, gute Jungs zu sein, aber ich war schon immer ganz zufrieden damit, einen kompletten Bastard zu spielen, der die Welt rettet, weil er es noch nicht zu Ende benutzt hat. Alduin kann sein Kauspielzeug zurückhaben, wenn ich dazu bereit bin, und nicht vorher!

 

Is "Monopoli" a role-playing game?

Not according to your point of view ... In mine it is - albeit in a limited way.

Where are we again? In a porn community.

There's nothing wrong with that per se - but ultimately it shows that this deeply human sector runs just like all the rest.

I myself have quite a bit of experience in the real-life interpretation of BDSM and various fetishes - I draw from that in my games...

...and fortunately there is this forum with its many mods that make it possible for me to include this aspect at all.

Real BDSM is always a lot of "role play" and is also full of various prejudices and sometimes absolutely narrow-minded views.

The "best" of all from my own experience -> the group around the "History of O" ... only those who have read the "Book of Books" - know what true devotion and submission has to look like - besides the dress code and that of course only the man may be dominant and the woman always submissive.

As long as all this remains in the small world of the "O" followers - no problem ... but if the whole rest of the (BDSM) world is defined from this small island -> NO.

My "alter-ego" in the fetish area is a latex cat ... many people really didn't want to understand that I am dominant at the same time.

They never got the idea that their pet cat has nothing to do with me... but they could not mentally detach themselves from it.

And this ability to free oneself from the limitations of the "everyday I" is probably the central aspect of every role-play.

For me, a latex catsuit and a suitable mask are completely sufficient ... Others can't even do it with a "manual".

?

 

[DocClox]

32 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

 

Is "Monopoli" a role-playing game?

Not according to your point of view ... In mine it is - albeit in a limited way.

 

Well, exactly! Monopoly is a role-playing game because you play the role of a property developer. Chess is a role-playing game because you play the role of the white or black king. Tic-tac-toe is a role-playing because you play the role of one of the combatants in a high;y abstracted conflict.

 

You get to the point where "role-playing game" and "game" mean exactly the same thing. At which point "tole-playing" has zero meaning and serves no purposes except to give warm fuzzies to fanboys who somehow feel that their favourite game would be in some way diminished were they unable to call it an RPG.

 

That's not a good basis for a definition.

 

32 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

As long as all this remains in the small world of the "O" followers - no problem ... but if the whole rest of the (BDSM) world is defined from this small island -> NO.

 

 

But then you don't  see people claiming that Celebrity Masterchef is BDSM because they like cooking programs and they heard that BDSM is cool, so their favorite cooking program is also BDSM. No one is claiming that the classic B&W western series Rawhide is BDSM because it has lots of whips and leather in it.

 

And if we did arrive at a situation where BDSM was to be applied used to describe every activity imaginable whether or not it included any fetishistic aspect, I think in that case, even you might find yourself returning to Mlle. Réage's classic story to find a definition that was not utterly bankrupt and devoid of useful meaning.

 

32 minutes ago, Miauzi said:

And this ability to free oneself from the limitations of the "everyday I" is probably the central aspect of every role-play.

For me, a latex catsuit and a suitable mask are completely sufficient ... Others can't even do it with a "manual".

?

 

One thing, just to be clear. I'm am not claiming that my definition of role-playing is the correct one, not am I insisting that any one else uses it. If there was ever a time to set out a Single True Definition for the genre, that ship has long sailed.

 

That said, it is the definition that I use. You may use other definitions, but at least when I talk about role-playing you know what I mean when I use the term. I also happen to think that it's a far more useful definition than the meaningless marketing label currently in vogue, and I encourage others to adopt the definition as their own.

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by DocClox

[bjornk]

Perhaps you should ask yourselves what isn't a role-playing game. I would propose a few qualities to look for in a role-playing game, which filter out many other types of games, I'm sure I can add a few more.

 

• If the player directly interacts with the game world without any proxy or agent (i.e. player character) in between, then it's not a role-playing game. This would eliminate a lot of games including Monopoly, Chess, Pong, Tetris etc. Whether or not the player is LARP'ing as someone while playing is irrelevant, because the game world is completely oblivious to the presence of the player, in other words the "role" they assume is not recognized in the game world.
   
• If the game is completely linear and forces you to follow a particular narrative, in other words, there isn't much room for player agency, then it's not a role-playing game, because a role-playing game must be built around player choice, without it there's no room to role-play. This would also eliminate a lot of games, such as shooters, platformers where you do have a proxy or agent but it has no significance in the game.
   
• If the game doesn't have NPCs the player character can interact with, then it's not a role-playing game, because in order to talk about a "role" in a game world, you'd need to have a society of intelligent beings that also have roles in the world they occupy. This would also eliminate any games in which you do have a PC in a non-linear sandbox environment, but you do not have a society and a particular role in it. I suppose games like Minecraft can be given as an example.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by bjornk
ugh, grammar

[Jellyfish505]

2 hours ago, bjornk said:

If the player directly interacts with the game world without any proxy or agent (i.e. player character) in between, then it's not a role-playing game.

 

Agreed, which is why an FPS shooter isn't a "role playing game" ?

 

One of the main reason a voiced protagonist is a big deal to me is the same reason I dislike first person rather than third person perspective in an RPG, another aspect of Half Life that made it more of an exotic shooter than an RPG. I might switch to first person for the pew pew moments, but always back to third person for interaction with NPCs or just moving around the world. I want to see and *hear* the character, in a more cinematic way. I want to be taken out of "this is me in front of a keyboard on this side of the screen" into "this is a character on the other side of the screen".  That's how it works for me. Seeing & hearing Nora in third person FO4 works for me as being mute & first person would make it harder for me not to be me rather than Nora.

[bjornk]

3 hours ago, Jellyfish505 said:

Agreed, which is why an FPS shooter isn't a "role playing game" ?

 

Not quite what I meant in the part you quoted, cause you can still create a 1st person only RP game, however, I do agree that 3rd person is a better role-playing experience, because it allows players to disassociate themselves from the character they control. 1st person view on the other hand, sort of implies that the character is indeed the player and while theoretically the game still has a proxy between the player and the game world, it's almost rendered useless in practice. This makes player's interaction with the world feel more direct and I'm fairly sure would also discourage players from playing as the opposite gender because of the strong association between the player and the player character.

 

[Mr. Otaku]

A silent protagonist is exactly what a game like this needs. It makes the role playing much more flexible and allows for better moddability which is a stable of Bethesda RPGs. Starfield will have more dialogue lines than Skyrim and Fallout 4 combined and all of that voicework is only on the NPC side, just imagine how much content that is. Returning to silent protagonist was a good move by them, i know not everybody's gonna like that (which is fair we all like different things) but this was needed.

[N.Gamma]

For me, a silent protagonist is not an improvement or immersion, but an money saving measures
In role-playing games, there are 2 factions: those who like a voiced protagonist and those who do not.

Simply eliminating a faction is unwise to me, and simply saying that a silent protagonist would be more immersive only applies to half of the fans of roleplaying games.
For me there is only one reason why the protagonist has no voice. money saving measures.

You could have just solved this by having a voice protagonist and those who don't want to have a checkbox for protagonist voice yes/no.

[Fuzzy_Fox]

On 7/3/2023 at 7:33 AM, Jellyfish505 said:

Just discovered the player is unvoiced in Starfield. Instantly lost all interest in the game  

I instantly got interested when they said the main protagonist isn't voiced. I hated Fallout 4 because of the voiced player character. 

[Jellyfish505]

5 hours ago, bjornk said:

Not quite what I meant in the part you quoted, cause you can still create a 1st person only RP game

 

I did write "FPS shooter"  ?

 

5 hours ago, bjornk said:

I do agree that 3rd person is a better role-playing experience, because it allows players to disassociate themselves from the character they control

 

Exactly. It is very much about helping that disassociation process. And further to that, having Nora sound like an American woman rather than a posh Englishman (i.e. me) really helps that along ?

 

[DocClox]

Dissociation is exactly what I don't want. I want to be my character and be me as well, in that role. That's the point of the exercise.

 

If all I want is to passively identify with someone else's story, I can get that watching TV.

[bjornk]

2 hours ago, Jellyfish505 said:

I did write "FPS shooter"  ?

 

I know you did, and I specifically ignored the shooter part because not only the 'S' in FPS already stands for "shooter", but it's also irrelevant because it doesn't say anything about how the rest of the game was designed, if it has a linear narrative and so on. All it says that the player sees the world from his own perspective and shoot at things. Neither of these prevent the game from being an RPG, but the former kind of weakens the role-playing experience as I wrote in my post.

 

1 hour ago, DocClox said:

Dissociation is exactly what I don't want. I want to be my character and be me as well, in that role. That's the point of the exercise.

 

If all I want is to passively identify with someone else's story, I can get that watching TV.

 

It's not someone else's story, it's still the story you create, that's the whole point of role-playing, but you're not the one in the game who acts it out, the character you control does it, in other words there is a proxy between you and the game world, the game world recognizes it without knowing anything about the player.

Whether or not you associate yourself with the character you create and control is irrelevant, because it's in your mind, the game doesn't know that, another player sharing the adventure with you in a D&D session or in a co-op game wouldn't know that. It has nothing to do with the game being an RPG.

 

The reason why I see "disassociation" as a better role-playing experience is because it makes it easier to role-play as other races or genders, as someone who is completely different than who you really are, gives you an opportunity to be someone completely different. If your characters are always similar or identical to you, just in a different role, it would be a rather limiting, unimaginative way of role-playing.

 

As far as RPG players are concerned, I've figured that there are three kinds of play styles, I personally would rate them like this from the best experience to the worst:

 

1. Role-play the character as someone else, think of how the character would act/react.
2. Role-play the character as yourself, think of how you would act/react.
3. Try to be the given character instead, as if you're following a script.

 

As I talked about previously in this thread, 3 isn't role-playing and is what we do in most other types of games. There's already a well-established character in the game that the player controls, basically the protagonist of the story, and the player tries to pretend to be him/her. It would work well in all narrative driven games, superhero games, or in any game with a well-established protagonist, but it wouldn't work at all in RPGs with blank slate characters, such as Bethesda games, might work to some extend in RPGs with pre-defined player characters. The games in which this play style works well, generally leave you no room or very little room to role-play. It may seem similar or comparable to 2, but 2 still allows you to role-play and freely deviate from it in any way you wish, whereas in 3 you'd feel the need or feel forced to maintain the consistency of the character due to the accompanying narrative in regards to this character.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by bjornk

[Lyman the Lunatic]

I don't like RPGs in general, and I like them even less if my character is voiced. I know a lot of people hails the Mass Effect series. I've played it too, I find Shepard quite annoying & I don't think Jennifer Hale is a good Femshep either (scandalous, I know).

Yes, I've played KOTOR as well. You are probably aware that the dialogue sometimes doesn't represent what the option says. But while I play that time, I've come to my realization that in Bioware games, top right = good. Mid right = neutral. bottom right = bad. So I stop letting my character say things I would've said, but what I would do which I find playing them to be annoying.

One of the reasons I hate Guild Wars 2 are not only for their boring gameplay, ridiculous attempt to balance all classes to the point they are all boring to play, but because my character speaks, because I find all of their voices sucks (with Nolan North being the most tolerable, I know, I know, my opinions are heretical). I hate the voices, I hate how they say things, it makes me feel like I am not those characters. It makes me feel like I am someone else, whom half the time don't even say or act the way I would. Guild Wars 2 were becoming a plot railroad, the "choices matter" didn't exist since the Zhaitan arc.

To me, reading makes me feel invested in my characters. Modern games already ditch quest dialogues & flavour texts over BIG SUPER MASSIVE OBJECTIVE HIGHLIGHTS BECAUSE THEY THINK YOU ARE AN IDIOT WHO ARE ILLITERATE & CAN'T FOLLOW SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS SO THEY FILL YOUR ENTIRE SCREEN WITH OBJECTIVE MARKERS & GLOWING INTERACTABLES. LOOK HERE IDIOT, I WANT YOU TO FOLLOW EVERY SINGLE OF MY INSTRUCTIONS. ARE YOU HAVING FUN YET, MORON? YOU BETTER BE, BECAUSE YOU ARE A SUCKER WHO PAID FOR THIS!!!! (yeah, I don't like RPGS, I don't understand why people even plays them).

I don't know if I can believe youtube algorithm, but I have always hated the writing in modern games as well. The youtube algorithm wants me to call this kind of writing style "millennial writing". I think it's stupid, because I don't live in America, and that terminology is an insult to millennials everywhere. I tend to call it "Twitter writing" or "American fanfic writing", or even "White American girls writing". The characters tend to be insufferable & moronic, and I can clearly feel you are forced to obligated to whatever garbage the characters thinks, says, or behaves, because that's the only way for the game to progress. Maybe I'm the stupid one here, I thought RPG stands for Role Playing Games. I don't feel like role playing, I feel like being plot railroaded, I have no input other than doing the combat just so I could be "rewarded" by seeing how insufferable the character I am supposed to like really is.

If Starfield has no mod, I'm not interested. It's a Bethesda game, it'll be a buggy mess & super boring to play.


And before you ask me why am I even doing in a TES/Fallout forum. Simple, I once fell in love with TES/Fallout after the 1st time I play Oblivion & New Vegas. Skyrim is not the TES I fell in love & I rely on Sexlab to spice up my Skyrim playthroughs (it failed, but it was more tolerable). And no, I have not touched Fallout 4. I don't see the relevancy of building a base when you want to find your missing son.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Lyman the Lunatic

[Jellyfish505]

2 hours ago, bjornk said:

but it's also irrelevant because it doesn't say anything about how the rest of the game was designed,

 

Au contraire. The word "shooter" says it all, it's a game primarily focused on you interacting with the world by shooting at it, not a game designed to let you frequently talk or sneak your way past problems.

 

2 hours ago, bjornk said:

The reason why I see "disassociation" as a better role-playing experience is because it makes it easier to role-play as other races or genders, as someone who is completely different than who you really are

 

Exactly. I play these kind of games to interact via a proxy that is something quite different to me. I don't need or want the protagonist to be "me"... otherwise I would likely to make the character's decisions much as I would IRL (to the extend that is possible in a game). The way I see it, the fun is trying to see the problems the game throws at me from the character's perspective, be it Nora, Commander Shepard or Geralt of Rivia, that is the "role" I'm looking to play.  

 

Of course it's not wrong to see it differently, clearly many people posting here do, regarding the voice as getting in their way. But the process of dissociation that voice contributes to is exactly what I'm looking for, which is why I prefer... voiced and third person.

[bjornk]

1 hour ago, Jellyfish505 said:

Au contraire. The word "shooter" says it all, it's a game primarily focused on you interacting with the world by shooting at it, not a game designed to let you frequently talk or sneak your way past problems.

 

Fallout 3 or 4 can be considered as a FPS or shooter if you only focus on its combat mechanics with firearms, in other words, there's a "shooter" or "FPS" in them. You refer to the term "shooter" as a specific game genre, whereas I talk about it from a game play mechanic point of view that can be incorporated in other genres, which is in fact the case. Speaking strictly in terms of established game genres in a discussion about specific game mechanics is kind of pointless, isn't it? "A FPS isn't an RPG" is nothing but stating the obvious, adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. You didn't even understand what I meant in the part you quoted. A "shooter", whether it's in 1st or 3rd person, still has a "proxy" between the player and the game world and in that regard they meet one of the qualities of an RPG that I proposed. You can't quote that and tell me "that's why an FPS is not an RPG" when what I said was the complete opposite.

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by bjornk

[Miauzi]

Vor 45 Minuten sagte Lyman der Verrückte:

Ich mag RPGs im Allgemeinen nicht und noch weniger mag ich sie, wenn mein Charakter eine Stimme hat. Ich weiß, dass viele Leute die Mass Effect-Reihe begrüßen. Ich habe es auch gespielt, ich finde Shepard ziemlich nervig und ich glaube auch nicht, dass Jennifer Hale eine gute Femshep ist (skandalös, ich weiß).

Ja, ich habe auch KOTOR gespielt. Sie wissen wahrscheinlich, dass der Dialog manchmal nicht das wiedergibt, was in der Option steht. Aber während ich dieses Mal spiele, ist mir klar geworden, dass bei Bioware-Spielen oben rechts = gut ist. Mitte rechts = neutral. unten rechts = schlecht. Also höre ich auf, meinen Charakter Dinge sagen zu lassen, die ich gesagt hätte, aber was ich tun würde, was ich als nervig empfinde, wenn ich sie spiele.

Einer der Gründe, warum ich Guild Wars 2 hasse, ist nicht nur das langweilige Gameplay und der lächerliche Versuch, alle Klassen so auszubalancieren, dass sie alle langweilig zu spielen sind, sondern auch, weil mein Charakter spricht, weil ich alle ihre Stimmen scheiße finde (wobei Nolan North am erträglichsten ist, ich weiß, ich weiß, meine Meinungen sind ketzerisch). Ich hasse die Stimmen, ich hasse die Art und Weise, wie sie Dinge sagen, es gibt mir das Gefühl, dass ich nicht diese Charaktere bin. Es gibt mir das Gefühl, jemand anderes zu sein, der die Hälfte der Zeit nicht einmal so sagt oder handelt, wie ich es tun würde. Guild Wars 2 entwickelte sich zu einem Handlungsstrang, die „Entscheidungsfrage“ gab es seit dem Zhaitan-Bogen nicht mehr.

Für mich bedeutet das Lesen, dass ich mich in meine Charaktere eingebunden fühle. Moderne Spiele verzichten bereits auf Quest-Dialoge und Flavour-Texte statt auf GROßE, SUPER MASSIVE ZIELE-HIGHLIGHTS, WEIL SIE DENKEN, DU SIST EIN IDIOT, DER ANalphabeten SIND UND EINFACHEN ANWEISUNGEN NICHT BEFOLGEN KÖNNEN, ALSO FÜLLEN SIE DEN GESAMTEN BILDSCHIRM MIT ZIELE-MARKIERUNGEN UND LEUCHTENDEN INTERAKTIONSTEILEN. Schau mal, IDIOT, ich möchte, dass du jede einzelne meiner Anweisungen befolgst. HAST DU SCHON SPASS, Idiot? Das solltest du besser tun, denn du bist ein Idiot, der dafür bezahlt hat!!!! (Ja, ich mag keine RPGs, ich verstehe nicht, warum die Leute sie überhaupt spielen).

Ich weiß nicht, ob ich dem YouTube-Algorithmus glauben kann, aber ich habe die Schrift auch in modernen Spielen immer gehasst. Der YouTube-Algorithmus möchte, dass ich diese Art von Schreibstil „Millennial Writing“ nenne. Ich finde es dumm, weil ich nicht in Amerika lebe und diese Terminologie eine Beleidigung für Millennials überall ist. Ich neige dazu, es „Twitter-Schreiben“ oder „amerikanisches Fanfic-Schreiben“ oder sogar „Schreiben weißer amerikanischer Mädchen“ zu nennen. Die Charaktere neigen dazu, unerträglich und schwachsinnig zu sein, und ich kann deutlich spüren, dass man gezwungen ist, sich dem Blödsinn zu verpflichten, den die Charaktere denken, sagen oder benehmen, denn nur so kann das Spiel voranschreiten. Vielleicht bin ich hier der Dumme, ich dachte, RPG steht für Role Playing Games. Ich habe keine Lust auf Rollenspiele, ich habe das Gefühl, dass die Handlung auf den Kopf gestellt wird, ich habe keinen anderen Input als den Kampf, nur damit ich „belohnt“ werde, indem ich sehe, wie unerträglich der Charakter, den ich eigentlich mögen soll, wirklich ist.

Wenn Starfield keinen Mod hat, bin ich nicht interessiert. Es ist ein Bethesda-Spiel, es wird ein Chaos sein und superlangweilig zu spielen sein.


Und bevor Sie mich fragen, warum ich mich überhaupt in einem TES/Fallout-Forum befinde. Ganz einfach, ich habe mich einmal in TES/Fallout verliebt, nachdem ich Oblivion & New Vegas zum ersten Mal gespielt habe. Skyrim ist nicht das TES, in das ich mich verliebt habe, und ich verlasse mich auf Sexlab, um meine Skyrim-Durchspiele aufzupeppen (es ist fehlgeschlagen, aber es war erträglicher).

 

Since when has the quest pointer had anything fundamental to do with an RPG?

Because people have become dumber since "Morrowind" - which didn't have a quest pointer?

RPGs on computers are certainly older than you.

[Lyman the Lunatic]

1 hour ago, Miauzi said:

 

Since when has the quest pointer had anything fundamental to do with an RPG?

Because people have become dumber since "Morrowind" - which didn't have a quest pointer?

RPGs on computers are certainly older than you.

Your point being? The 2nd line gave me an impression you got offended? How so?

We're talking about an upcoming RPG game, I don't see why an old RPG on a computer has to do with anything. I see that you have to use a translator, maybe it mistranslated something?

[bjornk]

12 minutes ago, Lyman the Lunatic said:

I don't see why an old RPG on a computer has to do with anything.

Perhaps what he meant by that is the comtemporary dumbed-down RPGs treating the player as an idiot isn't enough reason to ditch the entire genre cause it wasn't like this in the past?

[Jellyfish505]

1 hour ago, bjornk said:

Fallout 3 or 4 can be considered as a FPS or shooter if you only focus on its combat mechanics with firearms

 

By that logic, any game with a gun is an FPS, making the classification fairly pointless. The fact company bumpf might call it an FPS just means marketing wants to throw as wide a net as possible. A table can be a shield if you pick it up & use it as one, I suppose IKEA must be a bit less disingenuous than game companies by not advertising that useful feature in the event of a home invasion.  Pointless digression from your otherwise good points but I've already typed it so...