Many threads have been made about Jrpgs and criticizing them for their linearity, anime art style and old turn base combat, meanwhile Wrpgs have been changing to include many aspect of action games and first person shooters. With the recent success of both Dues Ex and Skyrim do you think the genre is going in the right direction or has changed for the worst?
What do you think is the current state of WRPGs?
- Thread starter G-Force
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think both action games and WRPGs are converging in a singularity. Action games are getting more RPG elements, and RPGs are becoming more action-oriented because they're both aiming at the same target: a game where you can pretend you're an action hero all the time. Eventually, they will just be persistent action/RPG worlds where you just live a SecondLife as James Bond or Conan. Turn off chat to be alone. Turn it on to socialize. The action genre is in as much danger of disappearing as the RPG genre.
Always remember:
"90% of everything is crap."
This applies to WRPGs as much as anything else. We criticise JRPGs (and rightly so) for almost always being about poorly dressed, angsty, androgynous little punks and their creepily childlike girlfriends out to save the world with the power of friendship. However, a similar thing can be said of WRPGs. After all, they're almost always about one-dimesional action heroes hiking around Middle-Earth Ripoff #5583 in search of their next level-up or stat boost.
Generally speaking the only WRPGs I see as worthwhile are Bioware's offerings. Yeah, they have their fair share of flaws and terrible design decisions, but the presence of actual decent characters elevates them above the rank and file in my eyes.
Thankfully there's also the occasional pleasant surprise like the new Deus Ex.
Speaking of which, I do strongly approve of the recent 'actionization' (for lack of a better word) of WRPGs. Characters, story, dialogue and exploration coupled with the immediacy of actual gameplay? Hell yes, I'll take it. The further RPGs get from D&D-style dice rolls and spreadsheets, the happier I shall be.
"90% of everything is crap."
This applies to WRPGs as much as anything else. We criticise JRPGs (and rightly so) for almost always being about poorly dressed, angsty, androgynous little punks and their creepily childlike girlfriends out to save the world with the power of friendship. However, a similar thing can be said of WRPGs. After all, they're almost always about one-dimesional action heroes hiking around Middle-Earth Ripoff #5583 in search of their next level-up or stat boost.
Generally speaking the only WRPGs I see as worthwhile are Bioware's offerings. Yeah, they have their fair share of flaws and terrible design decisions, but the presence of actual decent characters elevates them above the rank and file in my eyes.
Thankfully there's also the occasional pleasant surprise like the new Deus Ex.
Speaking of which, I do strongly approve of the recent 'actionization' (for lack of a better word) of WRPGs. Characters, story, dialogue and exploration coupled with the immediacy of actual gameplay? Hell yes, I'll take it. The further RPGs get from D&D-style dice rolls and spreadsheets, the happier I shall be.
Alls well, I've a few minor quibbles but overall the genre is still going strongly. In opposition to Zhukov however I do wish there were more D&D-style dice rolls and spreadsheet style rpg around. Action-RPG are becoming steadily more and more common whereas the more tactical sorts tend to be vanishing at an annoyingly fast rate. The last big budget 'traditional' rpg was Dragon Age: Origins, and before that Neverwinter Nights 2. That's two games within the last six-seven years, it's getting a bit depressing.
Which isn't to be too gloomy however, the major market might be ignoring ye olden style adventures but there's still a variety out there in the form of indie projects and smaller titles. Drakensang and Avadon spring to mind. Not saying that actiony rpg are bad either, Mass Effect 1 and 2 I very much enjoy and the Witcher series is bloody brilliant. I'm just always a fan of diversity and I'd hate to see the Baldur's Gate/Planescape: Torment style adventures become a thing of the past.
Otherwise it's all good. The genre is strong and there are numerous developers out there working on it, can't really complain.
Which isn't to be too gloomy however, the major market might be ignoring ye olden style adventures but there's still a variety out there in the form of indie projects and smaller titles. Drakensang and Avadon spring to mind. Not saying that actiony rpg are bad either, Mass Effect 1 and 2 I very much enjoy and the Witcher series is bloody brilliant. I'm just always a fan of diversity and I'd hate to see the Baldur's Gate/Planescape: Torment style adventures become a thing of the past.
Otherwise it's all good. The genre is strong and there are numerous developers out there working on it, can't really complain.
Honestly, the best WRPG made last year was made by the Japanese...lol
Skyrim was a great experience, but as an RPG it's probably one of the most broken games I've played by Bethesda, and that's saying A LOT! Dues Ex wasn't even really an RPG, it was an stealth action game with RPG elements. So there!
Skyrim was a great experience, but as an RPG it's probably one of the most broken games I've played by Bethesda, and that's saying A LOT! Dues Ex wasn't even really an RPG, it was an stealth action game with RPG elements. So there!
I think action RPGs have diverged from their TB/die rolling roots enough to be considered a separate genre. Putting them all under the RPG umbrella just causes confusion and disagreements.
Let's just make the 'P' in Role-Playing small and call the Action RPGs ARGs.
ARGs are doing fine, thanks. RPGs are entirely niche market.
Let's just make the 'P' in Role-Playing small and call the Action RPGs ARGs.
ARGs are doing fine, thanks. RPGs are entirely niche market.
WRPGs are quite quiet these days. More common is the Action Adventure game with RPG elements - ala Skyrim. The most recent WRPG I can think of was DA:O. Most other ones fall into a hybrid category - Deus Ex, Skyrim, Mass Effect, the Fallout 3, Dragon Age 2, ect. Granted, I have not played every game, nor seen a lot of indie titles, and thus I may have missed some, but WRPGs are not so common these days.
Im slightly dissapointed in them as a whole because they try to diverge but as soon as they let go of the D & D rules they are totally lost and instead of making another turn based system that works they instead turn to some action system that has been in other games and shoehorn it in, thats not to say the system is bad as such but it feels like its been done before and better by other non RPG games that actually focus on that system.
I suppose Dragon age origins had a different system even if it did still feel strongly D & D and the VATS system was ok but felt a bit gimmicky, as a whole WRPGS seem to be getting smaller and dumber trying to bring in the crowds getting rid of the complexity and customisation that made them so great in the first place.
Although saying all that there arent that many WRPGS put out but I would still call Skyrim a WRPG and I still want to play it because it is one of the few that I feel has its own system and works towards that goal rather than floundering around trying to decide what it wants to be.
I suppose Dragon age origins had a different system even if it did still feel strongly D & D and the VATS system was ok but felt a bit gimmicky, as a whole WRPGS seem to be getting smaller and dumber trying to bring in the crowds getting rid of the complexity and customisation that made them so great in the first place.
Although saying all that there arent that many WRPGS put out but I would still call Skyrim a WRPG and I still want to play it because it is one of the few that I feel has its own system and works towards that goal rather than floundering around trying to decide what it wants to be.
If you ask me, Skyrim is a lot more "pure" RPG than anything Bioware has ever made. A lot of people forget what RPG means, trace it back to it's roots and it was about a game where you could do whatever you wanted. It was about freedom to have an adventure, or a lack of an adventure if that's what you wanted to do.Joccaren said:
Don't get me wrong, Bioware makes great games, but they fall more in a hybrid category of RPG and Adventure to me, because you play a very specific role, and are limited on your choices way more than pretty much ANY Bethesda game. In Bioware you have an area here and an area there to go to and explore very little. In a Bethesda game you have a whole world to explore as you want. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are just different. I like both styles, but I put a lot more time into Bethesda games because I can do something like play a kajiit hunter that hunts game at night, bring back skins and meat, sell what I don't cook and eat and do whatever I want to for the rest of the day. That is the role I can choose to play in this game.
I guess it may just boils down to what "RPG" means to you. That's the whole reason we have seperated JRPG's and WRPG's.
Oh and to add so I stay on topic - with the addition of Skyrim, I'd say the state of WRPG's is pretty good. I've got over 150 hrs in it and I'm still playing.
The least bad offerings we get nowadays are action games, labelled RPG.
Solid action gameplay is something some developers can still get right. Ofcourse the best current RPG of the bunch is actually made by the japanese(DS).
Tactical RPGs are a dead genre or close.
Bethesda make hiking simulators that are very big, but also dull and without real challenge.
Bioware's best recent effort is a half decent shooter with lots of dialogue scenes.
Our best bets for the future are now action games like Risen 2 and Amalur, where the devs are focussing on making the combat work atleast.
Combat is still the core gameplay of any RPG and they might even get that right. I don't expect any real depth from any studio anymore. Still sucks if you want an RPG that is not an action-RPG.
Solid action gameplay is something some developers can still get right. Ofcourse the best current RPG of the bunch is actually made by the japanese(DS).
Tactical RPGs are a dead genre or close.
Bethesda make hiking simulators that are very big, but also dull and without real challenge.
Bioware's best recent effort is a half decent shooter with lots of dialogue scenes.
Our best bets for the future are now action games like Risen 2 and Amalur, where the devs are focussing on making the combat work atleast.
Combat is still the core gameplay of any RPG and they might even get that right. I don't expect any real depth from any studio anymore. Still sucks if you want an RPG that is not an action-RPG.
One question I have is the whole argument against action RPGs is stats vs player skill. People find fault in action games as they feel that the player skill trumps player creation when these very same stats are used to influence gameplay. Characters with high health have more life, characters that are weak with swords then to do less damage with them etc. How are stats not important when they can empower/cripple the player?
The WRPG is heading pretty much in the same direction as JRPGs, They'll become the same thing with different art styles in a generation or two.
Whereas JRPGs started out apeing movies and manga, ergo being linear, cinematic, and primarly decision free, WRPGs got the memo a bit late and they're currently in the process of going full sail to compete with the likes of Michael Bay.
My main problem with that approach is that once open-endedness is traded in for cinematic production, the player is pretty much at the mercy of writers. JRPG's dont even bother to pretend to have decisions and as such they're not prone to rage inducing bad writing syndrome.
WRPGs on the other hand, they don't really give you decisions anymore but pretend to, which has broken the flow of just about every WRPG I've played recently. From watching Shephard pile all his specialists into a shuttle to leave the Normandy helpless, to just about every act of stupidity under the sun in DA2, or not so much as being able to report illegal quest givers to the guards in Skyrim, I've been finding myself giving less and less of a shit about the genre.
Whereas JRPGs started out apeing movies and manga, ergo being linear, cinematic, and primarly decision free, WRPGs got the memo a bit late and they're currently in the process of going full sail to compete with the likes of Michael Bay.
My main problem with that approach is that once open-endedness is traded in for cinematic production, the player is pretty much at the mercy of writers. JRPG's dont even bother to pretend to have decisions and as such they're not prone to rage inducing bad writing syndrome.
WRPGs on the other hand, they don't really give you decisions anymore but pretend to, which has broken the flow of just about every WRPG I've played recently. From watching Shephard pile all his specialists into a shuttle to leave the Normandy helpless, to just about every act of stupidity under the sun in DA2, or not so much as being able to report illegal quest givers to the guards in Skyrim, I've been finding myself giving less and less of a shit about the genre.
Well, let me define pure:Ralen-Sharr said:
free from anything of a different, inferior, or contaminating kind; free from extraneous matter: pure gold; pure water.
A pure RPG therefore is made of RPG elements free from the elements of other games.
Commonly recognised RPG elements are:
-Inventory systems
-Levelling Systems
-Stats and Attributes
-Stat and attribute based combat, stealth and skills with no player skill
-Agency
-A dynamic world (A world that changes)
-Quests
Skyrim in these fields:
-Inventory system - Check, but a rather poor one
-Levelling system - Check, but a rather pointless one
-Stats and Attributes - Check, done different from the norm - refreshing
-Stat and Attribute based combat, stealth and skills with no player skill - No check. Skyrim focuses on player skill, having your character become you rather than you your character. It borrows its combat from first person action/adventure games and its things like lockpicking from puzzle games.
-Agency - Big fat check
-A dynamic world - No Check no matter what you do, the world does notthing. The closest it comes is a change of guard. Actually, scratch that, the closest it comes is sending those assassins after you.
-Quests - Check
Dragon Age Origin in these fields:
-Inventory system - Check, albeit a cluttered one it is a good system.
-Levelling system - Check, and with a reason to be there.
-Stats and Attributes - Check. Done in the traditional way. Also refreshing after many games today.
-Stat and Attribute based combat, stealth and skills with no player skill - Check. Your characters skill decides everything, not your own.
-Agency - Check, though not as much as Skyrim
-A Dynamic world - Check. As you make major choices, it changes things later in the game. Your companions may leave you based off your actions, you will have different allies at the end, the epilogue will end differently, ect. In addition, as you progress through the story, the world changes. A town gets destroyed by the Darkspawn, and you can slowly see the spread of the blight. Entirely reactionary dynamics, but it is dynamic.
-Quests - Check.
DA:O checks the boxed, Skyrim misses a couple. Add that to its focus more on adventuring and exploring, as well as the combat, more than any of the RPG elements, and as such it falls to the Action Adventure game with RPG elements side.
Yes, you have a the ability to go where you want and do what you want. Know what? GTA has that too. It's not an RPG.
Allow me to also add something to my above lists of points - there are certain 'base' elements that are omnipresent throughout all games. Things like Context, or a world. These things do not count as 'other elements'. Saying that a game is not an RPG as it doesn't have a good enough story is like saying Pure gold isn't pure as it doesn't have a heavy enough Isotope making it up. Likewise, world size does not define an RPG, nor any other game.
Let me also point out you play a specific role in Skyrim too, just as specific as in DA:O anyway. You are the Dragonborn, and you were captured near Falkreath where an ambush was set up for Ulfric Stormcloak. You escaped when Alduin attacked Helgen, and the guards went of to fight it instead of execute you.
In DA:O, you are the Grey Warden. Your backstory is somewhat dynamic based off which race and class you choose, which specific backstory you choose, and what you do in that backstory.
Allow me to help you.G-Force said:
In an RPG, ONLY character skill is allowed. It means you play the role of that character, not it plays the role of you.
For example, in Skyrim, MY skill will determine whether my bow shot hits the enemy or not, not my Characters skill. If I were role playing the best archer in Tamriel, but was personally a piss poor shot, I would not be able to roleplay such due to my lack of skill. Similarly, if I was personally a pro shot, but I was roleplaying someone who had never picked up a bow before, I would be hitting almost every time unless I made a purposeful decision to miss X out of Y shots.
In games like DA:O where stats are what matters, how good I am at archery counts for diddly squat. How good my character is at Archery matters more. If they are a pro archer, they will hit often. If they are a poor archer, they will hit rarely. I play them, rather then them playing me.
Same sort of thing with swords, magic, lock picking - ect. In Skyrim, even if I had level 1 of any of them, I could do perfectly well thanks to my own skill, the fact that my character becomes me. In DA:O, if I have level one skill in the attributes for each thing, odds are I'm going to fail a lot.
That is why stats are more important in RPGs, now, why they aren't so important in Action games.
Say you have level 1 archery in Skyrim. You deal bugger all damage with a bow. You can still use your own skill to take on a legion of enemies. Your stats will help you, but they aren't the focus. They are akin to buying a better weapon. All they do is modify your damage, not your skill. In situations like these, what decides who wins in a bow fight in Skyrim: Your archery skill, or how well you can dodge and aim the bow personally? It is the later. In an RPG, which defines it? The former, as your skill has nothing to do with it.
Stats in action games are like powerups. They are helpful, but not that important. It is more important that you use your own skill than rely on something the game provides you with.
[quote
But yeah, I can't wait for Hyperdemension Neptunia MK2 to come out, and I've yet to buy SKyrim.
The one game I have pre-ordered right now is a linear anime styled turn-combat JRPG... As much as people see fit to criticize them they still keep to their style and sell well on a limited market. People tend to say "JRPG" and instantly think of Final Fantasy and the Tales series, but thanks to NISA, Atlus, Arc, and the like we're getting some actually good JRPGs that no one knows about.G-Force said:
But yeah, I can't wait for Hyperdemension Neptunia MK2 to come out, and I've yet to buy SKyrim.
20 posts in and we're arguing about the definition of RPG. That was quick.
Personally, I consider Witcher 2, Human Revolution, and New Vegas to be RPGs. I also consider them to be very good RPGs, so there's also that. For games of their production value, they offer an excellent level of actual choice (in different ways - for instance, Human Revolution has awesomely nonlinear skill-based levels and a mostly linear story.)
And re: Bioware, I wouldn't write them off yet just because they made a bad game and an MMO. We'll see what they put out in the next few years.
Personally, I consider Witcher 2, Human Revolution, and New Vegas to be RPGs. I also consider them to be very good RPGs, so there's also that. For games of their production value, they offer an excellent level of actual choice (in different ways - for instance, Human Revolution has awesomely nonlinear skill-based levels and a mostly linear story.)
And re: Bioware, I wouldn't write them off yet just because they made a bad game and an MMO. We'll see what they put out in the next few years.