|
Nickoten posted:Why shouldn't Mass Effect, Fallout 3, and Alpha Protocol be RPGs? At least in the case of Fallout 3 and Alpha Protocol you're going to fail at most things that your character doesn't have the skills for, and you have a lot of role-playing to do. I think that should be enough. As for non-linear W-RPGs, I think Skyrim will be a great example with its Radiant Story system. But in some ways it's just redefining what linear means. You'll still always get the same quests, it just doesn't set in stone where you get them from and who they pertain to. Ice Blue fucked around with this message at 20:29 on May 7, 2011 |
#
?
May 7, 2011 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Nickoten posted:Why shouldn't Mass Effect, Fallout 3, and Alpha Protocol be RPGs? At least in the case of Fallout 3 and Alpha Protocol you're going to fail at most things that your character doesn't have the skills for, and you have a lot of role-playing to do. I think that should be enough. I agree with this, if only for the reason that if you discount those types of games, there's only been a couple of WRPGs in the last couple years. European ones, mostly - Drakensang, maybe Divinity? nessin posted:There are quite a few examples of non-linear W-RPGs such as Elder Scrolls, Fallout 1/2, Neverwinter Nights (depending on your definition of linear), Spiderweb Software games, some of the Might & Magic series, Buck Rogers (alright, I'm getting a bit too old and rare...), etc... True; I fully accept WRPGs used to be a lot less linear, but in the last few years they've thrown themselves into the linear ring, and it's almost all entirely due to Bioware. I don't think linearity is a bad thing - it lets you better tell a story, and provide effective set pieces based on that. I just wish they'd also give a drat about the personality and choices my character make. Anyway thanks to this I now want to replay Daggerfall really badly. Getting stuck in a dungeon for fifteen hours is apparently my idea of fun.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
Stelas posted:Anyway thanks to this I now want to replay Daggerfall really badly. Getting stuck in a dungeon for fifteen hours is apparently my idea of fun. Daggerfall with increased resolution, a bit of UI work, and usable dungeon maps would still be an amazing game if released today. The scale of the world is unbelievable.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
They don't make pure RPGs anymore in the west.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Isn't that the biggest game ever made in terms of actual explorable space (not counting minecraft)? With like tons and tons of NPCs?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Pretty much. It's also the game where you will never, ever complete a quest because of truly sadistic random dungeon design, but the sheer scope of it was breathtaking and you could spend hours painstakingly designing a broken as hell custom class and race. e: Welp, I guess they released it as freeware a couple years back. That's me done. Stelas fucked around with this message at 21:06 on May 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Nihnoz posted:They don't make pure RPGs anymore in the west. Because roughly the whole point of "RPGs" was to allow for greater complexity than was possible in games that were perhaps more action oriented. This limitation is quickly becoming not so limiting, but there are still problems, on both sides of the sea. jRPGs tend to favor keeping what a video RPG was in tact, while vainly attempting to appeal to larger audiences without abandoning the esoteric concepts/mechanics that "make an RPG". wRPGs tend to focus a bit less on the variety of features and seem more like shooters with an inventory and maybe some progression elements, more than anything else, instead they seem simplified to appeal to more people, abandoning both the archaic systems and many of the features that went with them. Bethesda, for as much as they frustrate me, probably come the closest to what most likely envisioned for video RPGs when they started making turn based role playing games nearly three decades ago, with Deus Ex probably being the first to really capture that intent. So, yeah, a "pure" RPG probably isn't long for this world. jRPGs just feel contrived, with mechanics for mechanics' sake, and while there will always be a niche for the turn based or purely numbers driven RPGs of old, games in general are more than likely to lean much toward _____ with RPG elements.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
I just want an action rpg with heavy customization and a feeling that my actions make a difference in the world Is that too much to ask?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:I just want an action rpg with heavy customization and a feeling that my actions make a difference in the world If you haven't already, pick up the recent Divinity: Dragon Knight Saga. It's by european developers and is a third-person action game, but there's a lot of stat building and skill picking to do. It's got a great tongue-in-cheek humour to it, and many quests have a few different ways to solve them, from mindreading your quest target to searching to just slaughtering some dudes. Most of the time you're also fairly free to find your own way through the world. The main plot is linear but there's a lot of stuff to do around it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
nessin posted:If you look at games that can actually be considered RPGs as opposed to "other genres who add in character building mechanics and call themselves RPGs" (Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect, Fallout 3/NV, etc...) then in generaly W-RPGs might not be all that non-linear and open but they do a lot to give the illusion of such compared to J-RPGs. The D&D games (from the Gold Box Series to Baldur's Gate and its spinoffs) are good examples of that. If Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect and Fallout: New Vegas are "shooters with RPG elements", then the Gold Box and Baldur's Gate games are "strategy games with RPG elements". I'm not sure how anyone could compare Baldur's Gate to Alpha Protocol and say that Baldur's Gate (a game where your only choice is what order you perform quests in) is more of a pure RPG than Alpha Protocol (where your choices dramatically alter the course of the game). The reliance of western RPGs on previous efforts (specifically, D&D) is a huge weight on the shoulders of the genre. The idea that only Baldur's Gate and its ilk are "real" RPGs is a symptom of this.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:If Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect and Fallout: New Vegas are "shooters with RPG elements", then the Gold Box and Baldur's Gate games are "strategy games with RPG elements". I'm not sure how anyone could compare Baldur's Gate to Alpha Protocol and say that Baldur's Gate (a game where your only choice is what order you perform quests in) is more of a pure RPG than Alpha Protocol (where your choices dramatically alter the course of the game). If you define a RPG as a game where you role play a character through a story, every game in existance can be pretty much defined as an RPG. You have to narrow down that scope in a video game. If you're going to take that stance, why in the hell world even post in this thread since it has no meaning to you? quote:What baffles me is how he considers Elderscrolls RPGs proper but FO3/NV are part of another genre that throws in RPG elements like progression/stats systems. FO3 and NV run on the same engine as Oblivion. They generally play the same except FO has more of a focus on shooting and Oblivion has more of a focus on melee. But if you do melee focus in FO3/NV, it's basically the same game in a different setting with an altered leveling system. Hell FO3/NV can be more RPGish if you consider the VATs system. And stats progression kinda matters more because of perks and skills, whereas in Oblivion, everything scales to your level so it doesn't really matter too much if you don't level. Hell in fact if you can level your skills more between character levels, you come out stronger in attributes, so slower leveling is an advantage. Morrowind's leveling system was different but the gameplay was largely the same. I said Elder Scrolls, as you so carefully pointed out, which goes well beyond Oblivion. I was mostly thinking the early games, but the Fallout series differs because its simply a shoot-em-up. Yes, you have skills and they artificially limit your ability to succeed at blasting people, but you've lost all the other stuff which seperates the traditional video game rpg from a standard action/shooter game (such as alternative combat methods - ie, Oblivion/Morrowind have magic systems which add a completely different combat element to the game).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
nessin posted:If you define a RPG as a game where you role play a character, every game in existance can be pretty much defined as an RPG. You have to narrow down that scope in a video game. If you're going to take that stance, why in the hell world even post in this thread since it has no meaning to you? My post implied that I value meaningful choices and mutable narratives. I think this is a clearer and more aspirational metric than "top-down isometric", which is rather superficial in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
e: ^^^^ I value those also, but they aren't what people call "RPGs" or "RPG elements"; those words refer to having assorted statistics and an experience-progression. Paperhouse posted:idk why there's such a need to properly define what makes a game a jrpg or not anyway, you can pretty much tell at a glance if a game is a jrpg in almost all cases. But you can't get everyone to agree that it is. If people disagree on when the term applies, then some discussion about the term is warranted. Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 22:12 on May 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
nessin posted:If you define a RPG as a game where you role play a character through a story, every game in existance can be pretty much defined as an RPG. You have to narrow down that scope in a video game. If you're going to take that stance, why in the hell world even post in this thread since it has no meaning to you?  I hate it when people bring that up. I know you're trying to make a hyperbole but some people seriously act like any game where you play a role is an RPG. That's not what RPG means and you know that no one in this thread was advocating that. nessin posted:I said Elder Scrolls, as you so carefully pointed out, which goes well beyond Oblivion. I was mostly thinking the early games, but the Fallout series differs because its simply a shoot-em-up. Yes, you have skills and they artificially limit your ability to succeed at blasting people, but you've lost all the other stuff which seperates the traditional video game rpg from a standard action/shooter game (such as alternative combat methods - ie, Oblivion/Morrowind have magic systems which add a completely different combat element to the game). Anyways, I don't think you know what a shoot-em-up is. FO isn't at all similar to Raiden or Ikaruga. As for it being a shooter, you can play the game using only VATS which removes the aiming aspect of it being a shooter and relies a lot more on your skill level with guns. If you consider melee and VATS and never aim your gun, FO3 and NV are more RPGs than Morrowind and Oblivion. Ice Blue fucked around with this message at 22:14 on May 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
It's weird seeing the revisionist perspective on RPGs from these forums. By that, I mean this prevailing viewpoint that "RPGs by their very nature should offer the most customization possible in an open world where every action has an impact." It's fine that people enjoy that particular variant of the genre, but by and large RPGs from both East and West have been on rails for a much longer period of time without protest. The first appearance of this relatively freeform, dialogue-heavy style that I can remember comes from Planescape: Torment, which was released in what, 1999? Maybe Daggerfall? I don't know. I like RPGs and I don't particularly mind it when the whole story is laid out for me -- how could you not if you started playing them during the 90s? There were few other options. I like gaining levels and gear, watching a big plot unfold, and cinematics, so I like RPGs. My point is that everybody has diverse interests, and role-playing games in a broad sense offer many features to attract different types of players. What bothers me is the smugness of some people in hoisting up character customization in a title like Alpha Protocol as the trump card that defeats all other considerations for why people might enjoy a game, while calling people who dare to like Dragon Age 2 simple-minded idiots. This elitist attitude seems commonplace and reminds me of the infamous Roberta Williams interview where she stated that the increased affordability of PCs led to the demise of Sierra-style adventure games because poor people didn't have the brainpower to decipher her bizarre dream logic. Now, I haven't played AP or DA2, so I cannot adequately judge if one is better than the other, but generally I don't like to belittle the intellect of others based on what they enjoy, or make them feel bad for enjoying it. Is that really an unpopular perspective?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:My post implied that I value meaningful choices and mutable narratives. I think this is a clearer and more aspirational metric than "top-down isometric", which is rather superficial in my opinion. And yet half the games I mentioned aren't top-down isometric games. I'll grant you that Alpha Protocol has at least some chance at actual different endings, but what about Mass Effect? While I'll agree that you make "choices" in the game, they have absolutely not impact on the game. The beginning stays the same, you still visit all the same places and do all the same things (while a few lines of dialog may be different) and you have the exact same ending. The character death in both games might be defined as a series of "meaningful" choices, but exactly how does that actually change the story in any way short of what characters you have available to pick with you at the end? quote:I hate it when people bring that up. I know you're trying to make a hyperbole but some people seriously act like any game where you play a role is an RPG. That's not what RPG means and you know that no one in this thread was advocating that. And yet I hate people who try and define stuff like Mass Effect as an RPG and they're only justification is it has a story. Fine, a bit too much of a stretch on my analogy, lets get smaller. God of War has a story, so anyone want to call it an RPG? The only difference between it and Mass Effect as far as their differences from an action game is people claim Mass Effects dialog choices make it an RPG instead of an action game. Is that what we've come down to? If a game has a story with dialog choices that its an RPG? Or is it that any game with a story of note is an RPG? Either way, why in the world is every other genre defined by their game mechanics and style, but RPGs are defined by something completely subjective?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:What bothers me is the smugness of some people in hoisting up character customization in a title like Alpha Protocol as the trump card that defeats all other considerations for why people might enjoy a game, while calling people who dare to like Dragon Age 2 simple-minded idiots. We haven't at any stage been discussing which games are good or bad or worth playing or whether you're a terrible person for liking them, just whether they're linear or non-linear, or how much they respond to your choices. If you want threads where people are mad about DA2 they're all over the forums; all that was said here was that Dragon Age 2 is non-linear and doesn't pay attention to how you play your character, while Alpha Protocol does. I'll be the first to admit that outside of that, AP is a pretty clunky game.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:33
|
|
|
nessin posted:And yet I hate people who try and define stuff like Mass Effect as an RPG and they're only justification is it has a story. Fine, a bit too much of a stretch on my analogy, lets get smaller. God of War has a story, so anyone want to call it an RPG? The only difference between it and Mass Effect as far as their differences from an action game is people claim Mass Effects dialog choices make it an RPG instead of an action game. Mass Effect is an RPG because it has RPG elements like character classes, level up progression system with skill point allocation, and also it has branching story elements where you can choose dialogue options. Yes, obviously there are many RPGs that don't have a number of these elements but that doesn't change the fact that they are still elements of RPGs. RPG in my mind is more like a buffet of different elements that people take pieces of. If a game has RPG elements, it takes a couple of those pieces to supplement its core gameplay elements. If a game is an RPG it means its core design is based around many of the parts, not necessarily having all of them. Leveling up system is one of the most important elements of an RPG. 99% of RPGs will have a character level up system, which Mass Effect does. God of War has RPG elements because it has an equipment/ability leveling up system but it's not an RPG because its core gameplay doesn't revolve around this in any way. What bothers me is when people try to boil down RPGs to some base elements that all of them share. It's impossible. That's not how it works. RPGs are such a nebulous genre as it is. It doesn't really mean anything intuitive as there are many branches of design traditions that make up the genre that go in different directions and don't directly influence each other. Ice Blue fucked around with this message at 22:37 on May 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
Stelas posted:We haven't at any stage been discussing which games are good or bad or worth playing or whether you're a terrible person for liking them, just whether they're linear or non-linear, or how much they respond to your choices. If you want threads where people are mad about DA2 they're all over the forums; all that was said here was that Dragon Age 2 is non-linear and doesn't pay attention to how you play your character, while Alpha Protocol does. I'll be the first to admit that outside of that, AP is a pretty clunky game. Oh, I wasn't addressing my comments specifically to people in this thread; my apologies if it seemed that way. I'm just pointing out that linearity in RPGs has been around for much longer than "true" non-linearity and it's weird seeing people call into question the RPG-ness of newer titles while games like Chrono Trigger offer virtually no customization at all yet are unequivocally RPGs by almost every definition. It's okay if there's fluidity in the genre because every form of media experiences the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
nessin posted:I'll grant you that Alpha Protocol has at least some chance at actual different endings, but what about Mass Effect? While I'll agree that you make "choices" in the game, they have absolutely not impact on the game. Even if you disagree that choices can have inherent value in and of themselves, that just makes Mass Effect a bad RPG. quote:And yet I hate people who try and define stuff like Mass Effect as an RPG and they're only justification is it has a story. Fine, a bit too much of a stretch on my analogy, lets get smaller. God of War has a story, so anyone want to call it an RPG? The only difference between it and Mass Effect as far as their differences from an action game is people claim Mass Effects dialog choices make it an RPG instead of an action game. First of all, why does it bother you if someone wants to say Mass Effect is an RPG because of its story? Is genre classification that important to you? Regardless, your problem is easily resolved when we remember that a lot of RPG tropes are not mutually exclusive with other genre-defining mechanics. It's hard to merge god games with first-person shooters, or casual puzzle games with hi-octane racing games. However, RPGs can be overlaid onto other genres very easily, since the core tropes tend to be loose collections of mechanics and/or structural decisions, which don't conflict with things like "has guns and first-person perspective" or "large scope, chiefly indirect interaction with core ruleset". This is why I'm really suspicious of the concept of "RPG tendencies". If we're honest about it, the whole RPG genre is "RPG tendencies". Somehow, though, the phrase remains in use. e: beaten!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:47
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Even if you disagree that choices can have inherent value in and of themselves, that just makes Mass Effect a bad RPG. The main problem is RPGs, as a genre, have a history. My main problem with genre classification, at least with RPGs, is games like Mass Effect are pretty drat definitively a specific genre, and yet people insist on calling them RPGs. As you and Ice Blue pointed out, many games have "RPG elements" but that doesn't mean they're RPGs. Start using Mass Effect as the definition of an RPG, bad or otherwise, it makes a lot of old games which are definitively an RPG not look so much like an RPG anymore. Its a pet peeve really, but enough of one that I get into forum arguments. If you didn't care about Genre classification, why reply to me at all? quote:Who in this thread has said that all that matters is a story? Are you just making up strawman arguments to poo poo on to make your point? I'd actually respond more to your post, except the very quote you used in your post (at least the first half of it) was in response to someone who said the story mattered in the classification of a RPG or not an RPG in the games I had mentioned earlier.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
nessin posted:The main problem is RPGs, as a genre, have a history. My main problem with genre classification, at least with RPGs, is games like Mass Effect are pretty drat definitively a specific genre, and yet people insist on calling them RPGs. As you and Ice Blue pointed out, many games have "RPG elements" but that doesn't mean they're RPGs. Start using Mass Effect as the definition of an RPG, bad or otherwise, it makes a lot of old games which are definitively an RPG not look so much like an RPG anymore. Its a pet peeve really, but enough of one that I get into forum arguments. If you didn't care about Genre classification, why reply to me at all? I did just explain why typical RPG characteristics (as per the 'history', jesus christ) aren't distinct enough to differentiate them as a separate genre of game. Thanks for replying I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:56
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Oh, I wasn't addressing my comments specifically to people in this thread; my apologies if it seemed that way. No worries, my bad for taking it that way. I'm still happy to consider Mass Effect or Dragon Age RPGs because, in the end, I think my definition of 'is this an RPG?' has equated to 'am I mucking around with selection of stats, skills, and equipment?'. Obviously there's a line to draw somewhere there - I wouldn't call something like Batman: Arkham Asylum an RPG even though I'm selecting what skills to learn with my experience bar, nor do I really consider Infamous an RPG even though you're choosing skills and picking between good or evil during sidequests. JRPGs and WRPGs still have that inventory/stat management in either case, they just approach storytelling and character interaction in (usually) different ways.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I did just explain why typical RPG characteristics (as per the 'history', jesus christ) aren't distinct enough to differentiate them as a separate genre of game. Thanks for replying I guess. No, you said how there are, and I quote, "lot of RPG tropes are not mutually exclusive with other genre-defining mechanics." If you meant that to mean what you said above, I apologize. However, as I'd pointed out earlier, RPGs as a genre in video games don't match up with the literal definition of an RPG (or its more modern twist when you start thinking of an RPG as requiring an inventory system or other stuff like that). RPGs in video games are Final Fantasy, the D&D Gold Box series, and the other games which have been defined as RPGs over the years. Can all of those games be classified as other games? Sure, if you squint hard enough and make concessions. However, at the time the RPG genre was designed around those style of games and THAT is what an RPG is in the video game world because that is what we have accepted to be an RPG for over two and a half decades. I'm getting the impression that you are trying to point out how a "role playing game", in the sense of the term, is nebulous to borrow Ice Blue's definition. I'm trying to point out that RPG is defined by its history, not by the literal definition of the term, or even some arbitrary definition that people have given it over the past few years which flies in the face of the definition its had for decades. Edit: If it helps to make sense as to why I brought it up, I'm a very practical person. If a game is an action game, call it a drat action game. Sure, it could have elements of other genres in it, but the game at its core mechanic is an action game (or whatever), but the game is an action game. I see stuff like (borrowing from Lurchibles below) Action/RPG literally gives me a short quick jolt of stress. Weird, sure, but I can't help it. nessin fucked around with this message at 23:43 on May 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
nessin posted:The main problem is RPGs, as a genre, have a history. My main problem with genre classification, at least with RPGs, is games like Mass Effect are pretty drat definitively a specific genre, and yet people insist on calling them RPGs. As you and Ice Blue pointed out, many games have "RPG elements" but that doesn't mean they're RPGs. Start using Mass Effect as the definition of an RPG, bad or otherwise, it makes a lot of old games which are definitively an RPG not look so much like an RPG anymore. Its a pet peeve really, but enough of one that I get into forum arguments. If you didn't care about Genre classification, why reply to me at all? I agree with most of what you're saying but I think the main issue is the fusion of genres. We have Action/RPGs now which is the evolution of the late 90's/early 00's Combat/RPG. While these games aren't 100% RPG they do add elements to enhance the gameplay etc  Mind you this does bring up the issue of how exactly you define a pure RPG? It's not an easy thing to do in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Final Fantasy, the D&D Gold Box series etc. are strategy games. Consider the historical origin of D&D. Also worth comparing these classical RPGs to the Dawn of War games (particularly DoW 2), which I think everyone generally takes to be an RTS.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Final Fantasy, the D&D Gold Box series etc. are strategy games. Consider the historical origin of D&D. Also worth comparing these classical RPGs to the Dawn of War games (particularly DoW 2), which I think everyone generally takes to be an RTS. I'm not disagreeing with you, primarily because you can basically define as RPG as the middle-ground between a Strategy and Action game. However, the point is they've been defined as an RPG for so long, that they (and the others that came before and after them) define a video game RPG. If you're going to say those aren't RPGs, then nothing is an RPG and I can freely go back to defeating all arguments by saying you're role playing a character in just about every game out there, because that is what a RPG is everywhere but in the video game world.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:idk why there's such a need to properly define what makes a game a jrpg or not anyway, you can pretty much tell at a glance if a game is a jrpg in almost all cases. I think pretty much this. It's like the Jacobellis v Ohio case: "I know it when I see it".
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
It's impossible to devise a definition for "RPG" that accurately describes all things we would recognize as being part of the family/class of things called "RPGs". So we don't need a definition for the term (especially not one that makes reference to "playing a role", obviously), because we use it successfully %99 of the time. The case with "JRPG" is a little murkier, I think. Not everyone seems to be in agreement on what is and isn't one?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:The case with "JRPG" is a little murkier, I think. Not everyone seems to be in agreement on what is and isn't one? I suspect that if you took a bunch of video clips of what we call JRPGs and WRPGs, most people would identify the same ones in those categories intuitively. I've also just heard of KRPGs recently in the iOS thread, which is a new term to me, and I'm mainly understanding as "JRPG but with worse translation and you have to pay money for everything". Also I doubt that "console-style RPG" and "PC-style RPG" will ever catch on, simply because they're not very catchy phrases (at best they shorten down to CSRPG and PCSRPG) and are basically meaningless as the gap between PC and console games closes. The only advantage to using those terms is that spergs like the guy in the video don't get on the verge of tears and shriek about racism when you use them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
Console RPG and PC RPG have been around longer than JRPG and Western RPG, though. No one uses "style" in there.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
Ice Blue posted:Console RPG and PC RPG have been around longer than JRPG and Western RPG, though. No one uses "style" in there. They have? I have honestly never heard those terms before today. I just remember there being RPG used universally until the word JRPG started appearing somewhere in the last decade. ChuckDHead fucked around with this message at 02:19 on May 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
What I want to know is why JRPG has some controversy as racist while JPop, KPop, and JRock are generally well accepted terms?ChuckDHead posted:They have? I have honestly never heard those terms before today. I just remember there being RPG used universally until the word JRPG started appearing somewhere in the last decade.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
While I was reading this debate this music was playing through my head, I haven't even heard it in years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cJe5v5lLKk
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:disagree, I already said it but I think in almost every case it's perfectly obvious if a game is a jrpg or not just by looking at a screenshot or video. I find the whole argument quite unnecessary when it's generally completely obvious what is and is not a jrpg. I'm not saying that your judgments aren't self-consistent, I'm just saying that not everyone makes exactly the same judgments, or else there would be no disagreement on the matter. I definitely don't think it's at all an inherently offensive or reductive term (though some uses of it I've heard have been). Though you could strip out the ethnic language and just call them Dragon Quest-clones, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I'm not saying that your judgments aren't self-consistent, I'm just saying that not everyone makes exactly the same judgments, or else there would be no disagreement on the matter.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 06:13
|
|
|
Oh cool a jrpg/wrpg debate. Anyway, thanks for the mini review of Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky earlier. I am having a lot of fun with it. It's interesting to have a grid battlefield where it's not obvious how far you are from something like in FFT.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 06:15
|
|
|
nessin posted:I'm not disagreeing with you, primarily because you can basically define as RPG as the middle-ground between a Strategy and Action game. However, the point is they've been defined as an RPG for so long, that they (and the others that came before and after them) define a video game RPG. If you're going to say those aren't RPGs, then nothing is an RPG and I can freely go back to defeating all arguments by saying you're role playing a character in just about every game out there, because that is what a RPG is everywhere but in the video game world. I'm not sure why you consider the 'history' to be so important. All that means is people have been doing it wrong for a long time. RPG is more of a general descriptor than an actual genre in itself. I'd place it as on a par with "competitive" or "sandbox" or "casual" in terms of game description, rather than "strategy" or "shooter" or "adventure". The former are loose collections of mechanics that serve a particular design goal, whereas the latter are mutually exclusive attributes that do not overlap. I think this is a more fruitful method of describing these games. By blowing the definition of RPG open, we allow ourselves to think more critically about how those mechanics are deployed (for example: why do RPGs like Fallout prize themselves on their variety of choice, but the mechanics are still 90% focused on violent combat as a solution to everything?). We encourage designers to attempt new things in their RPGs, instead of always looking backwards to see if its close enough to how things used to be. We also avoid arguments by being able to accurately describe Icewind Dale and Dawn of War 2 as "RPG strategy games", C&C as "a strategy game", Alpha Protocol as "an RPG shooter" and Gears of War as "a shooter". Furthermore, this taxonomy of children's entertainment won't become obselete when a new generation of gamers who have never played the classic 90s RPGs arises!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 09:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
nessin posted:I'm not disagreeing with you, primarily because you can basically define as RPG as the middle-ground between a Strategy and Action game. However, the point is they've been defined as an RPG for so long, that they (and the others that came before and after them) define a video game RPG. If you're going to say those aren't RPGs, then nothing is an RPG and I can freely go back to defeating all arguments by saying you're role playing a character in just about every game out there, because that is what a RPG is everywhere but in the video game world. You mention that RPGs are defined by by the history behind it and that if they aren't then you could make the argument that all games where you play roles are RPGs. This completely ignores the fundamental factors of what an RPG, and it's not that you're controlling a character (not the same thing as role playing, by the way). An RPG in a traditional tabletop sense is generally defined by a set of stat progression rules that facilitate an interactive story. These rules often use chance through die rolls to determine outcomes of combat, social, and other skill checks. Combat is usually based on change rolls but are heavily dependent on character stats and equipment. To facilitate character progression there's usually an experience system involved. This can take many forms but it's generally the same outline. These rules change from game to game but that's generally what an RPG is. Within video games, it's mostly the same. Most video game RPGs have stat progression and experience systems. Some have skill checks for things like lockpicking, persuasion, etc. Most have combat determined by chance (most JRPGs have a miss chance for example) but heavily leans on character stats and equipment. Some RPGs actually have you playing the role of a character. This is more common in western RPGs where you actually control the decisions of a character that change the way the situation plays out. But it's still an illusion of choice. No video game RPG truly lets you play the role of a character because all your decisions are preset and all the character reactions are preset. Until we get AI that can actually think and react on the fly to whatever you say or do, then we'll never get true role playing in a single player video game. That said, while playing a role is one of the most important factors of a tabletop RPG, isn't the defining aspect of a video game RPG. It's pretty pedantic to act like an RPG in the real world is anything where you play a role. By that logic, all actors are playing RPGs. Seeing a play is the same thing as watching some neckbeards play D&D since they would both be RPGs. There's a difference between playing a role and playing a role playing game. One is a game. Games have rules. RPGs in video games emulate those rule systems that define table top RPGs but they usually don't have you playing the role so much as controlling entities that are affected by said rules. It doesn't matter that you're not actually playing the role of a character in FFVI, you're just controlling character that have roles in the plot that you have no real say in. It's still an RPG because it follows a general ruleset that defines an RPG system. Ice Blue fucked around with this message at 10:06 on May 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2011 09:49
|
|