Why is it that RPGs get criticised for being derivative, but FPS games don't?

[migo]

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but from what you've said, I'm going to assume that you haven't played Operation Flashpoint or one or other of the ArmA games. If that's true, there's no point continuing this discussion because what makes the series different cannot be described to someone who hasn't played them.

Interesting you should say that, because:

Well, I'm no expert on FF games. In fact, I've only spent about 9 hours on all of the games in the series in my life. But I thought the combat system of 8 was far more drawn out and frustrating than the other games.

You apparently know as much about FF as I do about Operation Flashpoint, which is to say cursory experience. If you get detailed into it there's obviously differences, hell the difference in right button function between UT and Q3 is pretty significant to the point that I prefer UT significantly because of it, but really that's a minor tweak that only matters in the case of personal preference. The differences between FF games are more significant than that and they matter a huge deal to the people playing them, the way the differences between ArmA/OP and Red Orchestra and Insurgency matter to you, but compared to what's the same, the differences are equally trivial in both cases.

Not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, a lot of the market for current FPS games wouldn't be long term gamers, whereas those playing RPGs tend to be more invested in their hobby. Example, you'll find a lot more casual Halo players than you would casual Mount and Blade players.

I was introduced to FFX by a girl who only plays games casually... I think about the significant difference there is there are male casual FPS players and female casual RPG players.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I will say a LOT of RPGs tend to use the same setting (i.e. either Clark-esque sci-fi, Tolkien fantasy, or Japan's weird steampunkish, anachronistic settings). Even the really, really good ones like Dragon Age and Mass Effect are in pretty standard settings, though occasionally we get a hint of brilliance out of things like Bioshock, Fallout, Jade Empire, or Resonance of Fate. Heck, even Alpha Protocol (mediocre as that was) tried to shake things up a bit.

Gameplay wise there's only so much you can do, just like in any other game. Turn-based, strategic battles or real time (either through guns or swords) are really your only options (and occasionally we get really dumb ideas like FFXII's AWFUL auto-pilot system).

Why do RPGs get so much flak? Well...can't really say, especially since FPS's always get so many damn awards and high sales figures, DESPITE people claiming derivative nature (including GAME JOURNALISTS I might add)

 

[TOGSolid]

Do RPG fans really ask for originality? Given the amount of hate FF8 gets it would suggest they don't ask for originality and prefer for things to stay the same.

You seem to be implying that the reason people hate FF8 is because it wasn't just like FF7, as opposed to the fact that FF8 is just really bad.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I think either people who plays RPG are just more critical, or people who doesn't play RPG are just love to smear RPG.

I do believe you nailed it. I've noticed that RPGs often catch a lot of flack for recycled plots, cliches, stereotyped characters, and other things. However, if someone points out that shooters haven't evolved past point-n-shoot, the response tends to be "They're different." Really? So that excuses the fact that shooters suffer from the same recycled stories, twists, uninspired teammates, and other things?
It seems the RPGs and their fans are in their own circle in the gaming world where people outside the circle tend to complain about the games the same way people outside of gaming complain out video games. No pleasing some people.

 

[gamer_parent]

I think a lot of this also has to do with the fact that RPGs are just a far less defined as a genre. Does RPG = level up mechanic? Does RPG = conversation trees? Does RPG = turn based combat? For each definition we come up with, there's a game that defies that expectation. The only thing we have in common is the level up mechanic, but again, we can slap that onto just about ANY game.

RPGs are just not quite definable by their core game play mechanic.

On the other hand, FPS' are by their very name, defined by their gameplay. When you have game play mechanics tied down like that, the amount of really innovative things you can do with it without making it no loner an FPS kind of gets limited a little.

By contrast, an RPG has so many more avenues they can go down, both from a narrative aspect and from an in game mechanics aspect. As such, it is really much easier to call an RPG derivative. (even though in most cases, most games produced now a days are derivative)

This is, by the way, not excusing FPS for basically be an orgy of space marines or WW2 simulators or excusing RPGs for using all of the same character types and following legacy conventions that no longer don't make sense. Rather, I believe this is a matter of perceived differences.

 

[Deleted]

Well, I disagree on your first point, there's actually a lot of differences between Red Orchestra and other shooters, and Operation Flashpoint, when it was released, was totally original. In fact, all games in the OpFlash series besides Operation Flashpoint 2 (A sequel in name only) only copy off previous titles in the series, they're not like any other FPS.

The difference between Operation Flashpoint is about as minimal as the difference between Infinite Undiscovery and Final Fantasy XII. You can say they're completely different, but there's more that's the same than that's different.

I think FPS games do get due criticism for unoriginality, but not from the majority that buy them. The majority market for them is people who don't like change. However, the market for RPG's tends to be slightly more sophisticated than the vast majority who only play FPS games (The reason CoD still sells), and demand deeper experiences and more original features. Basically, what I'm saying is, it's not the same audience for both. FPS players don't really ask for originality, whereas RPG fans do.

Do RPG fans really ask for originality? Given the amount of hate FF8 gets it would suggest they don't ask for originality and prefer for things to stay the same. It almost strikes me that non-fans of RPGs are asking for RPGs to change into something they like, and when that happens they complain it's unoriginal.

But one could argue that FF8 was disliked by many because their first game was FF7 which blew their minds. And final fantasy fans are so picky they only play the best games, so people stray them way from FF8 and they get their opinions swayed.

Though RPG fans are more picky in general than FPS fans. to be knowledgeable of RPGs, you have to play a lot, more than just the Final Fantasy series. But the typical FPS player would just play Halo 3, MW2, BD2, and other AAA titles and not the obscure or old ones.

 

[Chamale]

I criticize lots of FPS games for being derivative. I think Bad Company 2 is too derivative of Modern Warfare 2, which itself is too derivative of various movies.

Essentially, a good FPS can be set in World War II. A good RPG can be set in Tolkien-fantasy land. Thanks to Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap), there are many, many examples of bad games using these generic settings.

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

Really i don't understand why people feel that they need to reinvent the RPG everytime a new one comes out. RPG's are about the story. It shouldn't really matter if Dragon Fantasy 7 has the same battle mechanics as Dragon Fantasy 6 as lon as the stories are good. If you always get the stories right then you should be able to get away with having the same battle mechanics in every single one of your RPG's.

As for why FPS's don't get shit for beng derivative...actually they do. Though i guess its mostly individual games that get the shit rather than the genre itself.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Gameplay doesn't change in FPS games all too much but the plot does and, if I remember rightly, that's a big part of what people ask for in an RPG. If every FPS was a MW2 or a Halo 3 then your point would stand. How different can a games get without being a different genre. If get change we say it doesn't hold a candle to others. If it doesn't we say it needs change. We're never happy with the end product.

That said, RPG games are marked down for turn-based combat because most games use real time and that's what people want. A large part of the market just want to get into the game and have that fast paced shoot up that the can get in an FPS with all the little appetisers that RPGs give.

Like I said before, plot is a big part of an RPG. If all RPGs start with amnesia or being taken from the village you were raised in then we have something to expect in the plot and we can judge what will happen from past games. We don't want that, we want twists and turns, things we wouldn't imagine. If little pieces of the story are the same then we get bored of playing that over and over again. This ties with the turn-based combat point; people don't want to get bored, and while I like both turn-based and real time, some people hate the time it takes to get to your next turn and get bored.

Games will never suit everyone's tastes and there will always be people complaining about things that don't need complained about (either because it works fine in a lot of games or because it just doesn't need it). FPS and RPG are different genres. Their good and bad aspects are different too.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

FPS' have a bit of a reputation now, regarded as being played more 'casually' and are the currnt jock of the gaming industry. The fans are easy to please because they don't ask for much beyond 'guns and ammo' and multiplayer to 'pwn noobs' on.

RPGs are well... significantly more geeky. But it seems that gamers are generally hard to please, the more you give, the more they want. RPGs happen to have already given a lot, which is why RPGers are so demanding.

 

[migo]

Do RPG fans really ask for originality? Given the amount of hate FF8 gets it would suggest they don't ask for originality and prefer for things to stay the same.

You seem to be implying that the reason people hate FF8 is because it wasn't just like FF7, as opposed to the fact that FF8 is just really bad.

I'm not implying it, I'm denoting it. FF8 is actually a really good game, and there's much more value in playing it now than most other early FF games because it's actually quite different and stands out. People who think it's a bad game just can't handle the differences.

I think a lot of this also has to do with the fact that RPGs are just a far less defined as a genre. Does RPG = level up mechanic? Does RPG = conversation trees? Does RPG = turn based combat? For each definition we come up with, there's a game that defies that expectation. The only thing we have in common is the level up mechanic, but again, we can slap that onto just about ANY game.

RPGs are just not quite definable by their core game play mechanic.

On the other hand, FPS' are by their very name, defined by their gameplay. When you have game play mechanics tied down like that, the amount of really innovative things you can do with it without making it no loner an FPS kind of gets limited a little.

By contrast, an RPG has so many more avenues they can go down, both from a narrative aspect and from an in game mechanics aspect. As such, it is really much easier to call an RPG derivative. (even though in most cases, most games produced now a days are derivative)

This is, by the way, not excusing FPS for basically be an orgy of space marines or WW2 simulators or excusing RPGs for using all of the same character types and following legacy conventions that no longer don't make sense. Rather, I believe this is a matter of perceived differences.

I like this point, and even level up isn't a constant in RPGs as Deus Ex has some pretty clear RPG elements without leveling up, but of course it isn't regarded as an RPG, so it's quite possible that you're right about the defining characteristic of an RPG being the level up feature, and beyond that there's so much flexibility.

Gameplay doesn't change in FPS games all too much but the plot does and, if I remember rightly, that's a big part of what people ask for in an RPG. If every FPS was a MW2 or a Halo 3 then your point would stand. How different can a games get without being a different genre. If get change we say it doesn't hold a candle to others. If it doesn't we say it needs change. We're never happy with the end product.

That said, RPG games are marked down for turn-based combat because most games use real time and that's what people want. A large part of the market just want to get into the game and have that fast paced shoot up that the can get in an FPS with all the little appetisers that RPGs give.

True, but that seems to be people who aren't fans of RPGs wanting them to change to be FPS games, whereas some people specifically like playing RPGs because they're not real time.

Like I said before, plot is a big part of an RPG. If all RPGs start with amnesia or being taken from the village you were raised in then we have something to expect in the plot and we can judge what will happen from past games. We don't want that, we want twists and turns, things we wouldn't imagine. If little pieces of the story are the same then we get bored of playing that over and over again. This ties with the turn-based combat point; people don't want to get bored, and while I like both turn-based and real time, some people hate the time it takes to get to your next turn and get bored.

Starting as an amnesiac doesn't preclude any twists and turns that would be unexpected. It's really just a starting point.

When Red Orchestra comes out having the small difference of not showing how much ammo you have left, it's not criticised for having a small change and otherwise being similar to other WW2 shooters. Insurgency and Operation Flashpoint don't get criticised for being unoriginal.

There's a reason for it, there's a pretty good formula that has been figured out, you carry a gun in front of you, look down the sights, try to shoot someone else before they shoot you, pick up ammo, and so on. Each game has its own tweaks, but at the core, that's what FPS fans like in their games, even though there isn't a huge difference between games running on the Quake 2 engine and running on the Unreal 3 engine.

The facts seem to be that invention in first-person shooters tends to be gimmicky - new features are slotted in without properly integrating them into the overall gameplay. As such, they never really catch on, like destructible scenery in the Red Faction games. That said, FPS games have gotten slack for being derivative, particularly later Second World War-based Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games.

Now with RPGs, it seems you have to be entirely original. If you use a turn based combat system that's fine for playing FF1 even (it's the open world with complete lack of direction that's the problem with it), and works great in FFX as well, it's a mark against the game. If you have a linnear story with cut scenes it's considered a mark against the game, and if you use a character with amnesia it's considered cliche.

On the other hand, RPG games are very story-based games. The reason that a standard turn-based combat system, as seen in pre-ATB Final Fantasy games, is seen as a mark against recent RPGs is that it feels rather static. Even the ATB system in later Final Fantasy games, let alone something like Sabin's Blitz techniques in FF VI or some of the techniques in Super Mario RPG, feels more urgent and more dynamic than the earlier forms of turn-based combat, even if they do just incorporate little features that would be seen as gimmicky in the first-person shooter genre.

But this is just talking about JRPGs here, and missing another part of the genre which is rather important: the Western RPG. These games are usually ultimately derived from tabletop RPGs. The reason why tabletop RPGs have turn-based combat is usually because the referee (Game Master, et cetera) can't calculate fast enough for real-time action, and the players can't think fast enough in such abstract settings. With a computer, the world can accurately be depicted fast enough to allow for real-time combat on formerly turn-based rules. There haven't been many pure turn-based PC RPGs since the days of Fallout.

The difference between Operation Flashpoint is about as minimal as the difference between Infinite Undiscovery and Final Fantasy XII. You can say they're completely different, but there's more that's the same than that's different.

Erm, no, I'm afraid. First off, Operation Flashpoint (The original, and the ArmA sequels which followed), aren't even FPS's, it's entirely possible to play the game totally third person. It's got a fully dynamic shooting mechanic, which almost no other game has, as in rather than having a weapon floating in front of your face, the weapon totally relates to how your body is moving. You might call that insignificant, but it totally changes the feel of the game. Add to that the games have dynamic campaigns, full vehicle and aerial combat. Arma II has dynamic consequences for each mission, no scripting for enemy behavior, beyond simple move commands, the AI thinks for itself. Basically, the way the games feel, and play and fold out, is distinct from every single other FPS out there.

Like Furburt, I'm an avid player of Operation Flashpoint and its sequels. Unlike Furburt, though, I've also had a decent amount of experience with Final Fantasy games, and with JRPGs in general. While I've never completed a Final Fantasy game - something which I am disappointed with myself about - I have played probably in excess of one hundred hours of games in the series, and have completed a number of JRPGs.

I'm going to have to go with Furburt in saying that Operation Flashpoint is really unlike any other first-person shooter on the market. The things which Furburt said all apply, but there are other distinct differences as well. Unlike most FPS games, which transition between parts of the game with loading screens, Operation Flashpoint loads all of its terrain detail into the game in the background. Yes, this same method is used in the Metroid Prime games, but I've never seen another game do it with pre-designed (not procedural) maps on such a scale as Operation Flashpoint. The engine is capable of simulating a map more than 10,000 square kilometres in area.

What's more, it's not exactly commonplace for people to be able to play games on the same engine used for fully-featured military combat simulators. Apart from Operation Flashpoint, ArmA: Armed Assault and ARMA II, I can think of Steel Beasts, and that's a tank simulator, not a first-person combined-arms simulator.

The thing is, engine tweaks aren't that big of a deal, they might affect gameplay but they're not significantly affecting the game type. It might make the game much more polished, but that's all it is - polish. It's not like you play the game that differently as a result. Any realistic shooter that doesn't allow you to bunny hop or use cross hairs will allow you to keep playing pretty seamlessly if you switch from one to another. If you don't have to change your play style, the game isn't that different.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Like I said before, plot is a big part of an RPG. If all RPGs start with amnesia or being taken from the village you were raised in then we have something to expect in the plot and we can judge what will happen from past games. We don't want that, we want twists and turns, things we wouldn't imagine. If little pieces of the story are the same then we get bored of playing that over and over again. This ties with the turn-based combat point; people don't want to get bored, and while I like both turn-based and real time, some people hate the time it takes to get to your next turn and get bored.

Starting as an amnesiac doesn't preclude any twists and turns that would be unexpected. It's really just a starting point.

Ah true, true. But if there are a number of parts all through the story that are the same as other RPGs then we can just jump to conclusions about the one we're playing because of similarities. Whether we're right or not is a different matter.

But, wow, you really went all out on that post. You must have carpel tunnel now.

 

[migo]

Like I said before, plot is a big part of an RPG. If all RPGs start with amnesia or being taken from the village you were raised in then we have something to expect in the plot and we can judge what will happen from past games. We don't want that, we want twists and turns, things we wouldn't imagine. If little pieces of the story are the same then we get bored of playing that over and over again. This ties with the turn-based combat point; people don't want to get bored, and while I like both turn-based and real time, some people hate the time it takes to get to your next turn and get bored.

Starting as an amnesiac doesn't preclude any twists and turns that would be unexpected. It's really just a starting point.

Ah true, true. But if there are a number of parts all through the story that are the same as other RPGs then we can just jump to conclusions about the one we're playing because of similarities. Whether we're right or not is a different matter.

But, wow, you really went all out on that post. You must have carpel tunnel now.

Nah, although I do need to get myself a new ergonomic keyboard as my old one broke.

 

[TOGSolid]

snip

So the almost universally hated and badly reviewed draw system, the craptastic, lazy plot, and generally unlikeable characters had nothing to do with why people may dislike FF8? About the only thing FF8 had going for it was that it's decent looking.

 

[migo]

snip

So the almost universally hated and badly reviewed draw system, the craptastic, lazy plot, and generally unlikeable characters had nothing to do with why people may dislike FF8? About the only thing FF8 had going for it was that it's decent looking.

The draw system forces you to play differently, but it results in a very literary and cinematic spell casting style which reinforces the overall theme of the setting and is rather unique in a video game.

The plot is great, it just takes until disc 2 to get started and disc 3 to really reveal itself. Most gamers lack the attention span to stick to it that long, but if you do stick that long you realise it's good.

The characters aren't any more unlikeable than any others in any Final Fantasy series, it's a bogus argument.

Final Fantasy 8 was different, people couldn't handle that, they didn't like it, they complained about the realistic character models because they weren't used to it, they complained about the plot because it wasn't generic and predictable, that's why they didn't like it, because none of the complaints leveled against FF8 are actually valid.

 

[TOGSolid]

snip

Literary and cinematic spellcasting? So standing around for hours drawing magic from monsters is immersive?

The plot has so many conveniences and logic holes that it's almost embarassing. Just happening to run into a derelict, perfectly function space ship. A single guard just happening to have the entire party's equipment. The entire plan to kidnap the President is just fucktarded. The mess with the transmission tower is just braindead (why weren't they already using the transmission towers years ago?). And yeah, there's just crappy writing everywhere.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'm Dr. Nitpick. Lets take a look at that...

That's trivial, UT has mutators to play in 3rd person.

Not even a mutator.

set input [key] behindview 1

Alternatively, THE QUICK-CHECK+OFF KEY!

set input [other key] behindview 1 | onrelease behindview 0

It's got a fully dynamic shooting mechanic, which almost no other game has, as in rather than having a weapon floating in front of your face, the weapon totally relates to how your body is moving. You might call that insignificant, but it totally changes the feel of the game.

UT2004's Ballistic Weapons mod (highly recommended) had weapon centric collision detection and accuracy mods. That is, no 4 foot rifle magically fitting in an airduct unless you turn it.
Oh, and it was fully adjustable if you didn't want hyper-realism either.

Well, FF8 is a JRPG, which is really a separate market. Whereas other RPG's are based on customization and exploration, JRPG's are based on character development and a strict but polished narrative. I think the problem with FF8 wasn't unoriginality, just a terribly ponderous combat mechanic, characters you can't really empathize with, and a lot of just bad design decisions.

Yup. Turn based combat isn't inherently bad (or "worse" than real time. It's a matter of preference), but it's far too easy to just phone it in while trying to distract the player with their wonky "original" narrative and world.
Do that often enough, and people will take notice.

Same deal with FPSes. I've been vocal about the whole FPS-clone trend for years now, and I know many others who feel the same way. Both genres are stagnant.