Arr Pee Gee
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's okay, but it's kind of mechanical.TOGSolid said:
I like "third-person looter", personally... And the clear distinction between this and "RPG" is that NOTHING that the player can do can alter the plot in any way. There's no farming, there's no merchanting, there's not even the possibility of selling /bow "rituals". There's nothing to do except kill stuff (for no actual improvement in the game world -- you can't even clear out a trade route that actually gets traders on it, in spite of the game talking about the possibility), and advance from one quest (killing something) to another (bring back a thing which is nearly if not totally useless to you personally, after killing stuff) until one finally reaches the predetermined end game opportunity to kill stuff. Even something as profound as picking a class barely shows an impact save for a couple of lines of dialog, mostly in the introduction speeches.
I'd argue that KOTOR, Mass Effect and Dragon Age wouldn't be nearly as good (or immersive) were it not for the incredible voice acting that is all but omnipresent.Toeys said:
OT: I agree, the term "RPG" has become something of a meaningless term. What really starts to annoy me about it are the elitists who get snobby every time a game doesn't meet their definition of an RPG. A perfect example of this is Mass Effect 2, which has caused a massive divide among people who simply can't enjoy the game because it either cut or streamlined some of the number-crunching aspects of the game. I personally don't understand this because the entire game is about the story and you role-playing as Commander Shepard. It's not about leveling up.
I'd call Bioware games "RPG's" because you ARE actually playing a role (and don't give me that "well, you play a role in every game so every game is an RPG!" crap), rather than using a completely pre-built character. Same goes for Fallout 3, and any story-driven game that allows you to choose how your character acts and how he shapes the world around him. If you can make a difference in how the story plays out and who your character is (not just how battles are won), then I consider that a true RPG.
It's kind of funny that things like the Final Fantasy or Diablo series can be considered RPGs when player's sole responsibility to their narratives is surviving fights and jogging to the next cutscene or NPC. That's the same role the audience plays in every game with even a semblance of a story.
It seems weird to me that the attribute-improving, equipment-customizing portion of gameplay is enough for some games to fall under the RPG umbrella even though they are more about crunching numbers than playing roles. But then, some of these genre titles have always been a bit nebulous.
It seems weird to me that the attribute-improving, equipment-customizing portion of gameplay is enough for some games to fall under the RPG umbrella even though they are more about crunching numbers than playing roles. But then, some of these genre titles have always been a bit nebulous.
For arguments sake, lets call Diablo a RPG. In D&D your character, as you would play them, starts to hear rumours about a little town that is experiencing troubles. So you pack up your sword and set off for the hamlet of horrors. Upon arrival you learn that an ancient demon has set up residence in the nearby catacombs and wants to go about conquering the world and generally making mischief. So with sword drawn you walk down and hack apart anything that isn't a scantily clad wench, unless they have horns on their head.
Diablo could be considered an RPG IF you assume all that jazz about hearing the troubles of a small town took place before the game even started. As a counterpoint, you could argue whether or not you want to help said town was even a choice you had. If you buy the game you are taking the proverbial flier asking for help off the tavern wall and committing yourself to helping them.
I think actual choice is what makes an RPG an RPG. The decision to save the Galaxy by being or not being a jerk doesn't count. Deciding to save or conquer, is.
Diablo could be considered an RPG IF you assume all that jazz about hearing the troubles of a small town took place before the game even started. As a counterpoint, you could argue whether or not you want to help said town was even a choice you had. If you buy the game you are taking the proverbial flier asking for help off the tavern wall and committing yourself to helping them.
I think actual choice is what makes an RPG an RPG. The decision to save the Galaxy by being or not being a jerk doesn't count. Deciding to save or conquer, is.
Maybe the problem isn't what we should call these games, but more that we so badly need to categorize games at all. I mean many new games are often a mixture of several genres and not only RPG has the problem that most games aren't totally RPG games, you have a similar problem with action games and whatever else there is. So you can take your time and invent subgenre after subgenre or you just write on the back of the game that it includes action and strategy and whatever elements and people might know enough then to buy the game or leave it be and everyone is happy.
I prefer to just add the titles you gave to them at the end to RPG. Says what kind of gameplay elements there are, as well as which one they focus on. Besides, I like how RPG is "nebulous." An FPS is an FPS; a racing game is a racing; a basket ball game is a basket ball game; most differences are cosmetic, rather than gameplay, or very minor changes. RPG's have so much variety to them. No one would doubt that FF7, Diablo 2, and Oblivion are all different games.
RPG will always be all of these elements for me, not just the one.
I don't even play D&D, but I might take it up just to escape half-games.
Yeah, they were fun.
*Sigh*
I don't even play D&D, but I might take it up just to escape half-games.
I just miss my inventory... and nuclear bullets that melt people into green sludge.JeanLuc761 said:
Yeah, they were fun.
*Sigh*
It's very simple: An RPG is a game that allows you to guide your character's advancement. So yes, Diablo is obviously an RPG.
Genres describe gameplay mechanics, not thematic elements. Argue about it if you like, but agency over a game's storyline (choosing to be hero or villian) is not what you would (traditionally) call a mechanic because that feature is principally about defining your narrative.
Genres describe gameplay mechanics, not thematic elements. Argue about it if you like, but agency over a game's storyline (choosing to be hero or villian) is not what you would (traditionally) call a mechanic because that feature is principally about defining your narrative.
Let's face it, past-decade Bioware games are JRPGs for the westernized market. Maybe a little more illusion of freedom and a bit more choice, but one basically gets shoehorned into moving along a mostly linear path with a bunch of sidequests. They're all about the story, the personalities, the romance... Characters just have smaller eyes and aren't as cute/freaky and combat is a more western -- more tactical, less RPSy.
Using Ron Edward's GNS (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) model for tabletop RPGs, most computer RPGs focus on Gamist play (combat maybe puzzles or sneaking or minigames). Some of make a token effort at Simulation to build a semi-viable world in the background with which to interact (although not better than, say, Dwarf Fortress). When computer games focus on Narrativist story they ALWAYS seem do it in a linear/non-choice fashion, like a stereotypical JRPG. Programmers haven't seemed to figure out how to tell stories without eliminating freedom yet. Maybe it's a difficult AI challenge or maybe they're just lazy and need to meet Q3 earnings targets. Personally, I think emergent stories are much more interesting than long, vaguely interactive movies and interminable cutscenes, but that must be just me since the market seems to love it.
Until that changes, I don't see how video "RPGs" are going to be all that similar to tabletop ones. "Computer RPG" inherently has to (and always has) mean something different -- usually borrowing a few trappings (such as character building or fantasy/sci-fi settings). I'm not sure whether the current proliferation of simplified RPG elements beyond the core is good or bad. On the bad side, it dumbs everything down. On the plus side, it exposes more gamers to at least a few RPG mechanics. Maybe the audience will become more sophisticated over time (hahaha)?
Using Ron Edward's GNS (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) model for tabletop RPGs, most computer RPGs focus on Gamist play (combat maybe puzzles or sneaking or minigames). Some of make a token effort at Simulation to build a semi-viable world in the background with which to interact (although not better than, say, Dwarf Fortress). When computer games focus on Narrativist story they ALWAYS seem do it in a linear/non-choice fashion, like a stereotypical JRPG. Programmers haven't seemed to figure out how to tell stories without eliminating freedom yet. Maybe it's a difficult AI challenge or maybe they're just lazy and need to meet Q3 earnings targets. Personally, I think emergent stories are much more interesting than long, vaguely interactive movies and interminable cutscenes, but that must be just me since the market seems to love it.
Until that changes, I don't see how video "RPGs" are going to be all that similar to tabletop ones. "Computer RPG" inherently has to (and always has) mean something different -- usually borrowing a few trappings (such as character building or fantasy/sci-fi settings). I'm not sure whether the current proliferation of simplified RPG elements beyond the core is good or bad. On the bad side, it dumbs everything down. On the plus side, it exposes more gamers to at least a few RPG mechanics. Maybe the audience will become more sophisticated over time (hahaha)?
I...I turned myself into a super mutant the first time I played Fallout. I let those fuckers in the Vault die, and then the Wasteland shortly after Vault 101 fell. The second time, I killed the mutants, blew up a church with an atom bomb, and then shot the Overseer in the face, singing tunelessly to myself as I did so. The third time, I talked my way through most conflicts and blew up a whole lot of stuff by convincing other people to. Then I shot the Overseer again. A story has to have a conflict and all, but there should be freedom to deal with it any way you like. Freedom isn't constrained to the tabletop, as these are all things I have done in both tabletop games and a pc game. Not all stories have to be strictly linear. Many ways to solve many problems with some varying consequences based on how you play the role. You see?FloodOne said:
Thank... You...
I've been trying to point out the history for a while now. Unfortunately this doesn't solve any of the current dilemmas. -_-
I've been trying to point out the history for a while now. Unfortunately this doesn't solve any of the current dilemmas. -_-
Bingo.Toeys said:
Diablo and everything like it -> dungeon crawler. That's all you do. Yes, you level up and get gear to become a progressively more badass dungeon crawler, but what does that amount to? More dungeon crawling in bigger badder dungeons. There's no playing of a role in this - these are not RPG's.
Unfortunately that's the only one of these subgenre listings that's easy to immediately identify off the top of my head. I don't know where to begin differentiating Mass Effect from Fallout. Maybe when I'm less tired.
A tapletop roleplaying game is a game where the in-game elements can be used in terms of what they are. That is, usually a game give each element one function, usually based on the real world function of that object, but not always. Roleplaying games do not do this. The player can use any in-game object the same way they could use a real object.
This is the defining feature of the hobby called roleplaying games. All else is extraneous.
I don't know what this means for computer RPGs as this feature is all but impossible in a computer game. It would require a good deal of programming and even then, it would be impossible to foresee every possible use of every object.
This is the defining feature of the hobby called roleplaying games. All else is extraneous.
I don't know what this means for computer RPGs as this feature is all but impossible in a computer game. It would require a good deal of programming and even then, it would be impossible to foresee every possible use of every object.
Even on tabletop RPG territory, there is a lot of variety beyond D&D. People who don't like number-crunching rulesets and instead prefer to focus on narrative and roleplaying may use something like Storyteller System from the World of Darkness games. Some people may even use rulesets without dice throwing, with "narrative resolution" instead (like the Amber Diceless RPG).
I think it's just a case of trying to determine if your tastes match with what the game tries to do instead of trying to find perfect definitions.
I think it's just a case of trying to determine if your tastes match with what the game tries to do instead of trying to find perfect definitions.
Silly Shamus. I already explained that story, choice etc have little to nothing to do with RPGs in "RPGs Defined". But it seems that you're already quite familiar with that thread.Shamus Young said:
It's so easy to get a reaction (and comments/replies) out of the BioWare fanboys on this site.