To me, it's not about names, or appearance's. That's just extra, a little bit of immersion boosting. For me, it's about what I can do with the character once I'm in control. Can I choose to do this quest, or one that involves doing the opposite? Can I control how I fight? How I react to situations? How I interact with other people in the world? When playing an RPG, I either want to play as I would, or create a totally new character and play as they would. In my experience, Square Enix doesn't give you those options.GrandmaFunk said:So then it's mostly an issue of customization and sandboxyness?TornadoFive said:To me, an RPG is a game where you have some input into your character. Some games have more than others, some games focus on certain aspects of your character. But Square Enix don't really allow you to do this. You play as the character the game gives you, going where the game tells you to, making the choices the game tells you to. There's no interaction from the player, apart from the combat and movement.
taking FF12 for example, I don't feel like I have no input into the characters just because I can't pick their names or appearance. I can still decide how to build them , how to use them, I still imagine an internal dynamic for my party, I still imbue my version of a given character with a personality different than that of other players' version.
maybe the role playing doesn't count because a large portion of it is internal to me rather than overtly included into game assets? do I find/create role-playing where there is none because I grew up playing pen&paper RPGs?
is Eye of the Beholder no longer an RPG? it certainly didn't give you more choices than a modern "JRPG"
Perhaps your pen-and-paper background gives you an advantage when playing RPG's. But by that argument, you could apply a background, history, and dynamic for the characters in the latest CoD game and, for you, it would be an RPG.
And I've never played Eye of the Beholder, so I can't make comments on it.