Role-Playing Games: An Examination

[Inkidu]

Oh no, it's this guy again.

Role playing, what it means and what it means to the industry are many different things. Semantically speaking just about every game on the market past and present has been a role-playing game. That is, a game in which the player takes on a role of another character. Zelda, Mario, Resident Evil, Fallout, Pitfall, Space Invaders, you get the picture. However, it's easy to argue semantics. So, I'll try not to do so too much.

Now, from what what I can tell, the general term role-playing is used in games to discern any game that requires at least two sheets of notebook paper and a bachelors in finite mathematics and statistics to play. Of course, I'm being flippant. These are Fallout, Bauldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect 1, Dragon Age 1, et cetera. Role seems to be synonymous with numbers. I hate numbers, numbers are an abstract way to represent physical, concrete things. Yes, this is true, this is why numbers exist. They're abstractions meant to quantify measures, but look at Fallout. 10 strength. Does that mean your character is Hercules? No, how is the quantified, usually it's quantified by the fact that the character can tote more stuff and sling around mini guns. Diablo characters look bad-ass not because of the armor. They hardly look different, it's because of some abstraction represented by the parameters of the game. You would throw away, "Epic Chain Mail" for "Crappy Splint Mail" as long as it had one point over the former in most Diablo games.

I hate to admit it but this is where Peter M. is right, you got to have some kind of change in a character that facilitates growth in the choices you make, and it has to be in a way that's not abstract, because... well... that's kind of passive and a waste of time with modern consoles. It's great where pen-and-paper games are concerned where it has to do with your imagination, but to have it when there is an onscreen avatar representing the traits and characteristics that you have chosen for them and them not change a lick other than their clothing? As it is now it's trying to marry an abstract with a concrete... and I don't know about you, but I don't like it. Stats are immersion breakers, not big ones. It does add up though. I know we'll probably never get rid of numbers, but there's something better than just numbers, the numbers have to be made more meaningful than just better attack power.

I think Mass Effect 2 is a role-playing game. I think Mass effect 3 will be as equal a role-playing game. Yes, it looks more action-y, but it's not Gears of War. It will still have its killer dialogue, but like ME 2 the way people play will show through will be different. I'm sure not everyone plays a Sentinel like I do. I like to up biotic damage rush in and crush them with biotic and tech abilities and activate the tech shield for a second wind. It's traditionally not how a Sentinel is played.

I don't think there is such a thing as a pure role-playing game. I think they would be boring and look more like an accountant's spreadsheets. I don't have a solid definition to give you, but I believe it's something between the numbers and the action-y combat. That new game Big Huge Games is cooking up looks like it. It looks like Diablo in stats but plays like a brawler from what I've read.

When the average person says, "I want more RPG." I think what they really want is a deep and meaningful chance to interact at least quasi-realistically as a character that belongs in the world, but then I think there's a crowd who just wants more numbers. To me, numbers are bad, I want more of the former, but I'll stop waxing philosophical on everyone now. Ultimately you have to ask yourself what you think a RPG is though, and what you want to see more of from the industry.

 

[Kopikatsu]

This is a point of view that I can agree with (Because it's one that I've held for a long time.)

If you want to get really technical about it, I see it as...even Gears of War is a role-playing game, but something like Fallout ISN'T. (For this reason. In Gears, you're taking on the role of Marcus Fenix. In Fallout 3, you make your own character for the most part...so you aren't playing a role, but you've made a role for yourself. I see that as the exact opposite of a role-playing game, as paradoxical as that sounds. Note: Actually, Fallout 3 does force a role on you (Your father's son, and resident of Vault whichever number it was.) But...it was the best example I could come up with off the top of my head.)

I'd prefer a game with a dynamic stat building and morality system. As in, there are no right or wrong solutions to problems. Let's say there are seven different paths you could take to complete a mission...some help others, some harm others, and some avoid conflict altogether. If you choose a path that is beneficial to others, then groups with similar ethics will warm up to you. If you choose a path that is malicious, then some groups would start to become interested in you while some others become wary of your actions. Even something as simple as refusing to harm innocents, even at the cost of failing the mission or killing anyone who stands between you and the target would change the world (and your influence on it) around you.

Such and such. The stat building tying into that with like...if you use a dagger to fight very often, then you'll become more skilled in using it. If you prefer to climb to places instead of walking around, then you become more skilled in climbing. If you walk instead, then you move faster and so on and so forth. You'd never be given stats or anything, but the animations would becoming faster and smoother as you become more skilled, you obtain new abilities gradually and need to use them in proper context in order to increase their effectiveness (To prevent standing in one place and spamming it until it one shots everything in the planet.)

Edit: I can simplify the first point a bit. Who are you in Gear of War? Marcus Felix. That is your role. Who are you in Fallout 3? Whoever you want to be...which is not a role, persay.

 

[Danceofmasks]

If I find a suit of rusty platemail, which has 1 point more defense than my good chainmail, and I chose a "toff" personality for my dude ...

I want him to complain bitterly about the look and the chafing.

Numbers are nice, but not for its own sake.
They gotta mean something.

 

[Inkidu]

Well, there is something I call "Internal Role Playing" I stole half it from James Joyce but it's the same concept really. This is why Gears of War isn't (at least not semantically) a role-playing game. You're never going to change Marcus. He will always have the same world view, the same attitude. The story might change him, but you will never. Anyway, internal role play. If you've ever played Oblivion or Morrowind and come up with a reason and motivation for why your character is in the prison/aboard the prison ship (wow those guys are unoriginal in that regard). You've internally role played. You've created a character's motivations entirely outside of or irrelevant to the actual game.

This kind of works with Shepard where this is actually genus. People have accused Shepard of a lack of character growth. No, Shepard is a fertile or barren in that respect as the person playing him. Who's ever been pure renegade and still hugged Tali? You just grew a little, and so did Shepard. I remember playing a golden boy in ME 1, but going renegade in ME 2, because I felt the galactic council that I ordered people to die for turned its back on Shepard. You can do all that both in game and your imagination. It deepens the experience.

Like I said though, no pure role playing game. There are just... varying levels of change that one can affect.

 

[Irridium]

I don't think there is such a thing as a pure role-playing game. I think they would be boring and look more like an accountant's spreadsheets. I don't have a solid definition to give you, but I believe it's something between the numbers and the action-y combat. That new game Big Huge Games is cooking up looks like it. It looks like Diablo in stats but plays like a brawler from what I've read.

Look up Mount and Blade. Mount and Blade Warband is the purest RPG I've ever played.

The way I see it, there are three kinds of RPG's.

The most common, are RPG's where the story is in a straight line, with side missions branching off of it. Imagine a leaf stem, thats what I'm getting at. No matter what side missions you do or how many, the story remains un-altered. These are your Mass Effect, your Dragon Age, your Elder Scrolls. Games where what you do outside of the main story doesn't have much of an impact(if any) on the main story, though they could impact other side missions.

Another form of RPG's, is where you take that leaf stem, and twist, turn, and warp it. These are games like Alpha Protocol, and Fallouts 1, 2, and New Vegas. Where the story and outcome are affected by what choices you make both in the main story, and side missions. These games aren't common, but you can find them if you look hard enough.

And then you have the third for, which are the "pure" RPG's. Where there is no stem, there is simply a start-point, and you make the story. These are games like Mount and Blade, where you, the player, have a direct impact through everything you do. A world that is active even if your not, that will go on without you, but that you can shape and warp based on what you do. These are the rarest forms of RPG's. They're out there, but you really have to work to find them.

And I'm not saying one form is better than the other. All are good. Just saying what I've noticed.

 

[Inkidu]

If I find a suit of rusty platemail, which has 1 point more defense than my good chainmail, and I chose a "toff" personality for my dude ...

I want him to complain bitterly about the look and the chafing.

Numbers are nice, but not for its own sake.
They gotta mean something.

Damn straight, that's what I'm talking about. People should react to him a lot differently too.

It's my thread I can double post if I want too.

 

[Kopikatsu]

-snip-

Mount and Blade makes me kind of sad, though. I like doing solo runs through games, and that's wholly impossible in Mount and Blade. Actually, while besieging a castle, my friend managed to kill eight enemy soldiers with his character and started freaking out about how epic his character was. I was like, "Come back when you can fight off entire hordes on your own. Naked. With no weapons. Actually, you get a stick. A broken, non-sharpened stick."

 

[Inkidu]

I don't think there is such a thing as a pure role-playing game. I think they would be boring and look more like an accountant's spreadsheets. I don't have a solid definition to give you, but I believe it's something between the numbers and the action-y combat. That new game Big Huge Games is cooking up looks like it. It looks like Diablo in stats but plays like a brawler from what I've read.

Look up Mount and Blade. Mount and Blade Warband is the purest RPG I've ever played.

The way I see it, there are three kinds of RPG's.

The most common, are RPG's where the story is in a straight line, with side missions branching off of it. Imagine a leaf stem, thats what I'm getting at. No matter what side missions you do or how many, the story remains un-altered. These are your Mass Effect, your Dragon Age, your Elder Scrolls. Games where what you do outside of the main story doesn't have much of an impact(if any) on the main story, though they could impact other side missions.

Another form of RPG's, is where you take that leaf stem, and twist, turn, and warp it. These are games like Alpha Protocol, and Fallouts 1, 2, and New Vegas. Where the story and outcome are affected by what choices you make both in the main story, and side missions. These games aren't common, but you can find them if you look hard enough.

And then you have the third for, which are the "pure" RPG's. Where there is no stem, there is simply a start-point, and you make the story. These are games like Mount and Blade, where you, the player, have a direct impact through everything you do. A world that is active even if your not, that will go on without you, but that you can shape and warp based on what you do. These are the rarest forms of RPG's. They're out there, but you really have to work to find them.

And I'm not saying one form is better than the other. All are good. Just saying what I've noticed.

I would group Mass Effect more in with the second group, but I'll say that it is in a much more "bigger-picture" kind of way that extends far beyond the scenario of the game itself.

See, I've never seen the third kind, because most of them are hold-overs from a text-based game era, and I might sound kind of snobbish, but if I'm going through all that trouble, I'm writing my own damned book and making some money off it. However, I did look up Mount and Blade, and it is interesting to see a game get a world set behind and be concrete. I can certainly see the appeal. I would have to look closer, but It doesn't appear that your character has much presence or personality despite being able to affect the world in such a way. Like I said warrants a closer look.

 

[Netrigan]

For me, I like a RPG that allows me to tailor the experience to my playing style... especially if they can avoid the usual falling off a cliff difficulty curve of far too many RPGs.

Deus Ex is probably the first game that really attempted to allow three completely separate playing styles into the mix: stealth, hacking, and guns. You could mix and match a bit, and the game was nicely difficult no matter which path you pursued.

I do like the Crackdown & Fable method of leveling up the skills that you use. That seems a fairly logical progression of powers, but limiting in its own way.

One thing I don't like about RPGs is that you have to make so many choices before you even start playing. Start off as a Mage and discover you don't like it very much... well, start over or lay back and think of England.

 

[Drafon]

I actually don't agree with Fallout 3 being judged as an RPG. If you judge it as an RPG, it actually holds up pretty poorly. What it is is an FPS with RPG elements. And there is nothing wrong with that. However, it could have changed my experience. I went into Fallout 3 was that it was a post-apocalyptic western-made RPG. What I got was a post-apocalyptic western-made FPS that at times played like an RPG. And I think that lingering annoyance made me pissed off enough to not want to continue playing after a point. But, oh well. The game deserves defending because gameplay wise, it's good. But it's not a real RPG. It doesn't play like an RPG all the time. This is where I feel it drops the ball.

For context's sake, if it's an RPG not made by NISA, Atlus or Bioware, I probably haven't played it. Just a little side note.

 

[Irridium]

I don't think there is such a thing as a pure role-playing game. I think they would be boring and look more like an accountant's spreadsheets. I don't have a solid definition to give you, but I believe it's something between the numbers and the action-y combat. That new game Big Huge Games is cooking up looks like it. It looks like Diablo in stats but plays like a brawler from what I've read.

Look up Mount and Blade. Mount and Blade Warband is the purest RPG I've ever played.

The way I see it, there are three kinds of RPG's.

The most common, are RPG's where the story is in a straight line, with side missions branching off of it. Imagine a leaf stem, thats what I'm getting at. No matter what side missions you do or how many, the story remains un-altered. These are your Mass Effect, your Dragon Age, your Elder Scrolls. Games where what you do outside of the main story doesn't have much of an impact(if any) on the main story, though they could impact other side missions.

Another form of RPG's, is where you take that leaf stem, and twist, turn, and warp it. These are games like Alpha Protocol, and Fallouts 1, 2, and New Vegas. Where the story and outcome are affected by what choices you make both in the main story, and side missions. These games aren't common, but you can find them if you look hard enough.

And then you have the third for, which are the "pure" RPG's. Where there is no stem, there is simply a start-point, and you make the story. These are games like Mount and Blade, where you, the player, have a direct impact through everything you do. A world that is active even if your not, that will go on without you, but that you can shape and warp based on what you do. These are the rarest forms of RPG's. They're out there, but you really have to work to find them.

And I'm not saying one form is better than the other. All are good. Just saying what I've noticed.

I would group Mass Effect more in with the second group, but I'll say that it is in a much more "bigger-picture" kind of way that extends far beyond the scenario of the game itself.

So far, your choices don't really affect anything. Unless Mass Effect 3 goes all out, and the story morphs and changes based on choices from the first two games, I'd say it remains in the first category.

No matter your choices in ME1, ME2 plays out nearly identically. None of your ME1 choices have any real bearing in ME2. Killing/Saving the council has no impact, killing/saving Wrex has no impact, nothing has any impact. The story of ME2 plays out the same no matter what.

As I said, unless ME3 goes all-out with your choices in the past two games, I wouldn't say it has the same impact as, say, Alpha Protocol in terms of choices/consequences.

 

[Inkidu]

I actually don't agree with Fallout 3 being judged as an RPG. If you judge it as an RPG, it actually holds up pretty poorly. What it is is an FPS with RPG elements. And there is nothing wrong with that. However, it could have changed my experience. I went into Fallout 3 was that it was a post-apocalyptic western-made RPG. What I got was a post-apocalyptic western-made FPS that at times played like an RPG. And I think that lingering annoyance made me pissed off enough to not want to continue playing after a point. But, oh well. The game deserves defending because gameplay wise, it's good. But it's not a real RPG. It doesn't play like an RPG all the time. This is where I feel it drops the ball.

For context's sake, if it's an RPG not made by NISA, Atlus or Bioware, I probably haven't played it. Just a little side note.

What if I said Fallout 3 was actually just an RPG with FPS elements? No, no, no. It's an RPG, it might not be deep enough for you. However, you affect a change in the world, in the character, and in others with the act of playing the game. So, yeah, I'd call it an RPG.

See I don't think Final Fantasy games or most JRPGs are actually RPGs. You're so removed from affecting the story or the world that it barely qualifies. You do get some character work, but you don't affect their personalities or the way they interact so it becomes a pure numbers game, and pure numbers are not role-playing they're order-giving tactical math simulators with stories. I kid, but I'm trying to make the point. That's not say I won't play an interactive story every once and a while, but they're not RPGs in a very deep sense.

 

[Irridium]

-snip-

Mount and Blade makes me kind of sad, though. I like doing solo runs through games, and that's wholly impossible in Mount and Blade. Actually, while besieging a castle, my friend managed to kill eight enemy soldiers with his character and started freaking out about how epic his character was. I was like, "Come back when you can fight off entire hordes on your own. Naked. With no weapons. Actually, you get a stick. A broken, non-sharpened stick."

Yeah, that is a shame. Though I did manage to find a game where its possible to solo. Its a space-sim/combat game, called Evochron Mercenary [http://www.starwraith.com/evochronmercenary/index.htm].

I'd say it's worth checking out. It has a demo(same type as the Mount and Blade demo, though instead of being capped at levels, its capped at 90 minutes of playtime), and I'd say its really, really good.

Though traveling can get a bit tedious, since it does take place in space, and in this game, space is HUGE. Best way to travel is to turn off stabalizers, kick in your afterburners, get up to a very high speed, shut off the burners, and just drift to where you need to go. Then when you get close, turn on your ship's stabilizers to have it slow you down.

 

[Inkidu]

I don't think there is such a thing as a pure role-playing game. I think they would be boring and look more like an accountant's spreadsheets. I don't have a solid definition to give you, but I believe it's something between the numbers and the action-y combat. That new game Big Huge Games is cooking up looks like it. It looks like Diablo in stats but plays like a brawler from what I've read.

Look up Mount and Blade. Mount and Blade Warband is the purest RPG I've ever played.

The way I see it, there are three kinds of RPG's.

The most common, are RPG's where the story is in a straight line, with side missions branching off of it. Imagine a leaf stem, thats what I'm getting at. No matter what side missions you do or how many, the story remains un-altered. These are your Mass Effect, your Dragon Age, your Elder Scrolls. Games where what you do outside of the main story doesn't have much of an impact(if any) on the main story, though they could impact other side missions.

Another form of RPG's, is where you take that leaf stem, and twist, turn, and warp it. These are games like Alpha Protocol, and Fallouts 1, 2, and New Vegas. Where the story and outcome are affected by what choices you make both in the main story, and side missions. These games aren't common, but you can find them if you look hard enough.

And then you have the third for, which are the "pure" RPG's. Where there is no stem, there is simply a start-point, and you make the story. These are games like Mount and Blade, where you, the player, have a direct impact through everything you do. A world that is active even if your not, that will go on without you, but that you can shape and warp based on what you do. These are the rarest forms of RPG's. They're out there, but you really have to work to find them.

And I'm not saying one form is better than the other. All are good. Just saying what I've noticed.

I would group Mass Effect more in with the second group, but I'll say that it is in a much more "bigger-picture" kind of way that extends far beyond the scenario of the game itself.

So far, your choices don't really affect anything. Unless Mass Effect 3 goes all out, and the story morphs and changes based on choices from the first two games, I'd say it remains in the first category.

No matter your choices in ME1, ME2 plays out nearly identically. None of your ME1 choices have any real bearing in ME2. Killing/Saving the council has no impact, killing/saving Wrex has no impact, nothing has any impact. The story of ME2 plays out the same no matter what.

As I said, unless ME3 goes all-out with your choices in the past two games, I wouldn't say it has the same impact as, say, Alpha Protocol in terms of choices/consequences.

Yeah, that's fair enough. I'm a devil for the details kind of guy, but I think the culmination of all your choices will have an impact, but it still makes the universe unique regardless so maybe heavy category 1 light category 2.

 

[Joccaren]

I actually like numbers and stats. I can understand if you don't, but then don't play RPGs, however, even in full shooters I would like some more numbers. Tell me how many bullets per second the gun fires, what percentage of health each bullet hurts the enemy by on a non-headshot, how much ammo it holds, how many clips you can carry and other information like that. It should be included in the weapon description, that way those that want to know the stats can, and can make an informed choice by numbers of which gun they think will work for them, whilst those that don't like numbers can go by what gun they think is best by the feel of the gun when playing. One is not inherently better than the other, I just like my numbers.