Escapist Podcast: 035: What Defines An RPG & More Mass Effect

Recommended Videos

Jachwe

New member
Jul 29, 2010
72
0
0
ruthaford_jive said:
What makes an RPG for me? Level ups, story, and choices (if it's western generally). There are exceptions of course. Not that anyone cares... just throwing it out there.
Saying you make exceptions for western to opposed to non western (say japanese) production is racist.
Also there are no exceptions to the rule in this case because it is not some case of a chaotic system with too much elements of random. If you want to define RPG give us a definition that applys to all what is called RPG. Why is that you might ask. I can answer that. It is because of logic. There is a method that is called deduction. If you know what a RPG is because you have defined what makes a RPG a RPG you may deduce if a random game you are looking at is a RPG.
Here is how the argument works:
1. All RPGs have statistical growth through repetitive action.
2. This game has statistical growth through repetitive action.
3. This game is an RPG
Also works like this:
1. All RPGs have statistical growth through repetitive action.
2. This game has no statistical growth through repetitive action.
3. This game is not a RPG.
 

iamwill2

New member
Feb 4, 2011
8
0
0
Great podcast yet agien, though I am sad that we never really heard Susan's response to the pee theory.
The one game I played to the end even though I hated was the signal player in Battlifield 3. I bought the game for the multiplayer, and when I buy a game for the multiplayer I always play through the signal paleyer befor I go online to get use to the controls and get a feel for some of the guns. So I started playing the Battlifield 3 single player and it was horrible and I was hated it, but I still felt obligated to finish the story befor I went online and, that motivated me to finish the game.
 

HellsingerAngel

New member
Jul 6, 2008
602
0
0
Wow... I don't know why, but whenever the two big questions of "What makes an RPG?" or "What's more RPG, Western or Eastern?" I always seem to run into the "JRPGs aren't RPGs because you don't play a role!" and I always die a little inside. I'll turn to a very old post, which I will edit a little to incorporate further knowledge gained since I first posted it, but for the most part expresses why JRPGs are RPGs and are no more so than Western ones. (sorry for the typos in advance)

"The main flaw with this argument is that you're comparing two culturally different experiences (WRPGs vs. JRPGs) with one culture's back story (D&D). The fact is, the Japanese don't view role-playing in the same light as us Western folk. Where as Western RPGs revolve around choices, customization and overall free form thinking, Japanese role-playing involves more storytelling, immersion into pre-set characterizations and realizations about personalities you never may have recognized before. It's more of a learning experience that gets you out of your shell to take on another's viewpoint, where as western philosophy on the matter encourages learning about and using your own personality to overcome extraordinary circumstances. Let's get some examples up here, shall we?

First I'll delve into Dungeons and Dragons. As most of us know, D&D is a game about character creation. It lets you pick from a wide veriaty of classes, who have a robust line-up of abilities and powers to conquer a world in the way you see fit. It allows statistical customization of your characters, while throwing in chance by having you roll to determine your overall strength. The character then plays out a determined personality, chosen from the beginning, and grows as a person in both personality and statistics as he or she adventures through the world before them. It encourages out-of-the-box thinking as well as puzzling solving and good judgement. These campaigns are mainly set in western-esque settings including broadswords, heavy armour and Tolkien races as well as monsters from common mythos, but have spread out to accommodate wuxian (asian kung-fu style, think Journey to the West) adventures as well.

Now what do the Japanese have to counter this? While possibly not the first tabletop RPG to ever come out in Japan, my first taste of their style was from Tenra Bansho Zero. This particular game is steeped in a sort of cyber-punk feeling as humanity has now gone into space to find habitable planets. So who's going into space? Well, children who pilot mecha, warrior caste with shiki demons bound to jewels inside them called "Samurai", cyborg "Kijin" who obtain perfection through replacing flesh with steel and a "Shinobi" caste of spies who insert battery packs into themselves to give them super-human powers! The main differences are how the characters interact with the world through the mechanics of the game. It plays out more like a Kabuki play, where your overall goal is to form a coherent and compelling story rather than to make choices. You interact with others and reactions are never determined by solely by personality, they're rolled for. Sure, you can get modifiers for persoanltiy traits, Karma points and such to effect the outcomes if you feel you need to sway a bad roll (much like how combat modifiers work in D&D), but on the whole your reactions are not your own and are determined by the role of some dice and a chart. You then have to act, in character, that reaction to NPCs or other players, trying to immerse yourself into your newfound, developed role and then deal with the consequences of this new revelation in the story.

So we stand here at a cross-raods, where there are similarities, but also some big differences between the two cultures. If you look at their progression into video games, however, you can see huge similarities. The Japanese prefer story, where as the West perfer choice and gameplay. It's a style and both have stuck to what they do best. So take each for what it is and enjoy both!"

Where WRPGs present the opinion that a character should be an extension of the player, JRPGs believe that the player needs to become the extension of the character. I think this is a profound difference in philosophy of role-playing and both have great advantages and disadvantages. However, can one really be called better than the other, or are they simply different and appeal to different beliefs in how we role-play?

Now, to come full circle, I believe the disconnect for JRPGs within the video gaming world is that no one can make you choose a particular path without it being seen as a straight narrative. Unlike Tenra Bansho Zero, JRPGs, as with Western RPGs, are wholly personal experiences and that the singular invention of the reset button means that no one can enforce the outcome of the game without eliminating that mechanic altogether and just making it a singular narrative. This is why JRPGs are more story driven, choice lacking games and may not be as attractive to some people. It still upholds that ideal of self-discovery through experiencing another (wo)man's perspective and seeing your identity of self flow out through opinion but it's not as profound, I believe, as it is with the pen & paper style. In the end, however, both are philosophically grounded in the same thing: a journey of self-discovery. To me, that's what defines an RPG.
 

DarkhoIlow

New member
Dec 31, 2009
2,531
0
0
Really enjoyed the Mass Effect talk.Always glad to see the opinions of the Escapist staff regarding the Mass Effect games.

Keep doing a great job guys and girl!
 

Jachwe

New member
Jul 29, 2010
72
0
0
ruthaford_jive said:
What the hell are you talking about, what does racism have to do with anything I just said? I think you misconstrued what I was saying amidst all the trolling/ego masturbation.
I did not misconstrue what you were saying. You just don't know what you are saying. The whole WRPG vs. JRPG debate is about racism. Excluding RPGs produced from japanese developers and saying RPGs using certain mechanics are japanese is racist. You may call it what you want but the principle is excluding something from something else thus treating it as something different, special or foreign and alien to be wary of. You were probably raised to not be racist. You also were raised to not accept racism. Thus your reaction of me saying you saying racist things. You think of yourself not as a racist. You saying something racist with malevolent intent is something you cannot imagine yourself actualy doing. That is superficial racism. There is also a deeply hidden hidden racism which we almost never notice like with the "western" and "japanese" RPGs. You may think them just labels and names who can do no harm but then you are mistaken. Words always carry meaning. I thus take the stance that our language dictates how we are understanding each other. Thus concluding you expressing those words have an affect on another ones outlook on the world because he gets the meaning of your words you yourself do not intent to transmit thus getting the message wrong you want him to receive.

ruthaford_jive said:
Anyway, I meant choices (story choices) generally apply to western games more, because they do.
Your argument is very sound. If something is true then this something is true. I cannot argue with that. You have proven that something must be true if it is true. Listen, if you want to argue learn how to argue. You cannot prove something by assuming that which you are going to prove. You may assume somehting which you are trying to prove the opposite of because proving your assumption wrong leads you to the conclusion that the opposit of your assumtion must be true. The opposit being any status that is not-somehting you assumed.


ruthaford_jive said:
Most (meaning not all) JRPGs don't give you a lot of choices, as far as progressing the story along how you want. And I said exceptions because there are exceptions to all three of those personal criteria in regards to what makes an RPG for me. If you noticed, I said personal and 'what makes an RPG for me', so that means this is a personal outlook. If someone else has different criteria, so be it.
Here is how it works. You say that what makes a RPG a RPG for you is random. Why are you saying that you might ask. That is easy to answer. "Most" like "some" are not "all". If you define a type, a sort, a kind of something they all have a certain something in common. Not most of them but all. You agree? Thus leading us to the conclusion that which is not shared by all is not relevant but optional to what we define. So if you say "most" and "exception" this just means it is not the important matter which we are talking about. It is not what makes a RPG a RPG.
Having different criteria is ok as along as the argument is sound, valid and of interest to the discussion. Your argument is sound and valid assuming what you are saying is true, but not interesting because of our assumption that what you are saying is true.
You see I studied logic. There is such a thing. I know how to argue. You are just displaying your ignorance of the matter (not ment as an insult) how anyone else but fanatics might agree with your point of view. That is because I assume you wanted a response to your point of view which you got and wanted people to agree or convert to your point of view (which I am trying to do to you).
Here is how the argument will work from now on. You proove me wrong and I am left with no other choice but to agree that I am wrong because I made an error within my own argument and my premises, or you take my premises and introduce another premise I agree with and proove your argument.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Preferring one kind of gameplay over another doesn't make someone racist, unless their only reason for not choosing that gameplay is its nation of origin. Japanese style RPGs and Western style RPGS have very different designs that typify their style, and it's perfectly reasonable for someone to say they don't enjoy them. If you don't like turn-based combat, for example, you'll likely avoid JRPGs, since they typically favor turn-based combat. That hardly makes you racist.
 

Rakor

New member
Mar 9, 2010
302
0
0
Hoo boy, I think I need some room here for the massive knuckle cracking required before this.

/cracks knuckles fervently

I think part of the issue is differing views on what kind of definition is being discussed. It seems to knock back and forth between something absolute and "What I feel an RPG should have." An overall definition is all-encompassing, while the latter is preference. I think a point to make is this: Imagine the earliest game that had a choice with sufficient weight for that rpg preference. Now, are there games before it that were considered RPGs. If so, then the choice with weight is not part of the overall definition of an RPG. It is an extra element that has been added--that people like--but it is not integral. Somewhat relating to the "movies are canon" discussion, the earliest definition tends to be the most concrete. Someone important enough really needs to coin a phrase for a game with weighted decisions. Anyway, semantics, I would probably say that an RPG is such that a character has progression. That seems to be a common enough element and one of the earliest.

Onto marketed gender in a game where you choose it: Yeah it would just be really difficult to initially market the female for your space cowboy simulator, especially given the *ehem* form-fitting uniform you employ. Imagine though, if the female was in a thick leather duster or a mechsuit, might work better. Can still be somewhat difficult in fantasy when the female archetype is either sexy mage or sexy rogue. One could have the female in full plate with a mean scowl on her face and ripping an orc in half, but that might come off a bit strong. (Tangent: Huh, this dictionary doesn't recognize "orc." Just found that interesting.) I feel Fable 3 would have been able to easily have a marketed female, because its not just a fantasy world female...it's a female ruler, which can fit quite nicely without oversexualizing.

Mass Effect's "moral" decisions are interesting and unique in that it is not good vs. evil. If you were evil you'ld let the galaxy die, but no. You still save the galaxy, it's just a matter of how you get there. Now sometimes you have nice decisions of savior of the people vs whatever it takes to get the job done. Other times you're kindof a jerk. I feel "Paragon" vs "Renegade" should take the words literally, and not fall into some of the good vs. bad framework. Paragon should be Lawful Good. Law is law, don't let some miscreant go because he heavily "funds" your cause but also don't stand up to the law to give civilians some slack. Renegade can just do whatever it takes to do what he needs to do. Judge Dredd vs. Robin Hood. Still good, just different levels of how flexible the law should be.

Man rants are fun, love this podcast.
 

Rassmusseum

New member
Oct 11, 2010
95
0
0
I kind of suspected that Susan's philosophy about not needing to finish games to review them. She probably wouldn't have given FFXIII-2 such a favorable score had she finished it before she reviewed it!
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Shinomori said:
Wait! What tv show were you guys referring to to at the beginning?
It's called Full Metal Jousting [http://www.history.com/shows/full-metal-jousting].
 

duck-man

New member
Mar 17, 2009
38
0
0
As far as playing a bad game to completion goes, I've done that plenty of times, but more with movies or tv episodes.
In fact, my best example has to be 2001 A Space Odyssey. Classic movie, of course, but everything in it I'd heard of or seen done faster in Star Trek. So any spectacles or plot twists were very muted, I'd also not read the book, and that left very little to keep my interest.

There are a few reasons, I guess, that I rarely give up on boring shows:
1) I can say that I've given it the best chance possible, and short of that I can say that any argument I make against it is well informed (One of my friends has read Twilight for this very reason).
2) I can use this as an example of something I don't like, and maybe I'll get out of another boring show sooner!
3) I need a push to stop doing something and start doing something else. 2001 was never objectionable or insulting, just dull. It's probably also why I need to go back and try to cut down this comment.
4)I also get this effect: http://xkcd.com/915/ , my standards drop :|
 

Firia

New member
Sep 17, 2007
1,945
0
0
Cheers for tackling my question (more or less) :)

everyones discussion on what makes an RPG an RPG made me realize that I'm not (at present) fully ready to be critically thinking about games on the same level as you folks do (but I try anyway). Despite everyones radically different take on what makes an RPG an RPG, there isn't anything I could have brought to the convo that would have enriched the discussion the way you folks have today. Cheers for what you do. :)
 

ischmalud

New member
Feb 5, 2011
145
0
0
no idea if someone else mentioned this already, but that just pissed me off when i listened to the podcast - its 2012 we talk about species now not race just like there isnt a human race its in fact a species.....horray for science
now that i got my rant out of the way i gotta say i might have to reinstall mass effect 1 althought i dont plan on buying or playing mass effect 3 :p
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
This podcast taught me that EA Sports games are RPG's.

A player is on a breakaway. I have several options and choices as a player that falls into the games mechanics as to how to deal with this situation. Do I control my goalie? Do I attempt to trip the player and allow for the penalty shot? Do I hope a save is made and focus on controlling a rebound?

If I choose to trip the player and lead to a penalty shot...I am then paying the consequences of my actions as the game is acknowledging my choice. If this penalty shot leads to a goal, it may impact the outcome of the game. The game further shows the consequences of my actions by giving my game wins and losses a meaning. Did my decisions lead to my making the playoffs?

You even get further into the RPG elements when you control GM decisions or utilize the Be A Player modes and work your way up from the minor leagues.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
To the RPG discussion: I agree that it's a combination of both player agency and character growth, but with the definition weighted more heavily towards player impact with notable consequence. I just don't buy the idea that something is not an RPG because it doesn't have tens of menu screens and piles of loot to sift through. That's all well and good, and I understand where the belief may come from, but a RPG should always be about the RP first and foremost. In accordance with that, I actually agree that, while I greatly enjoy many JRPGs, they aren't really RPGs. I consider JRPGs more of a sub genre or even a genre of their own.

To the question about playing a game through if you don't like it: I don't. Or, more accurately, I don't now. Back when I was a kid and there was no internet, I would be in the position of only getting a few games a year and would have no other choice. I made my choices on what to get as best I could (thank you EGM, for the most part) but then pretty much did have to suffer if I chose poorly. Now, however, I have many more resources to make informed choices on what I buy and play. Even though I don't have a ton of disposable income, if I do pick something up I really don't enjoy, I just don't play it. I'm not a completionist or achievement seeker and my free time is too valuable to spend on something I don't enjoy doing. It stings, sure, but it makes me make better choices the next time around.

To jousting: I'm a reasonably fit guy, but I would suck terribly. I've never been on a horse to this point, and I can't even always get my apartment key in my door lock on first go every time. There's no way I would be able to do anything accurate with an 18 foot pole.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
Rassmusseum said:
I kind of suspected that Susan's philosophy about not needing to finish games to review them. She probably wouldn't have given FFXIII-2 such a favorable score had she finished it before she reviewed it!
Score wouldn't have changed at all. The game doesn't get worse after the first 25 hours, which is about how long I played it before reviewing it. The problems of the end of the game are present in the beginning, and anything you'll find to enjoy doesn't suddenly appear in the third act. I didn't love the way the story wound up, but that wouldn't have changed the review score, or even whether I would personally recommend the game to anyone.
 

Shellsh0cker

Defender of the English Language
Oct 22, 2008
250
0
0
Wow, lots of walls of text in this thread.

First off, I was giddy as hell when my question got answered, so thanks for that. One thing I was hoping to discover that I didn't specify: what classes do you guys play? Actually, I guess I know Steve's and Justin's from the multiplayer 'cast, but I'm still in the dark as to Susan's playstyle. I'm guessing . . . Sentinel. Or maybe Engineer. These guesses are based off of absolutely nothing, by the way.

Guess I should give my two cents on the RPG discussion too. By and large, I agree with Justin; what defines an RPG is the player's ability to make choices that affect the world around them, and not on simply a tactical level. So no, I don't consider JRPG's to truly be RPG's, though I recognize that the term's probably never going away.
Mikeyfell said:
When you say "Shepard" I think Femshep.

But mostly Femshep, and I think that's because designed to be male. You can see it in the way she moves, stretching her neck or cracking her knuckles, the way she sits or dances. It's not lady like at all and (to me) it adds a depth to the character that you don't get with the male Shepard. It also doesn't hurt that Jennifer Hale is a far better voice actor than Mark Meer.
See, that actually ruins the immersion a bit for me. I can accept some of the masculine mannerisms, like the way she sits and crosses her legs (actually, with regards to that, I'm in complete agreement with you) but the way she walks and stands is so unnatural as to be distracting for me. It's not that it's not "ladylike," it's that the female human body simply doesn't work that way. I do love Femshep, and I agree that Hale is the superior voice actor (though Meer got significantly better in ME2, and from what I've heard of ME3, it sounds like that trend continued) but to me, Femshep is Femshep, not Shepard. Just the way I think of the character.