| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| The Changing Face of the RPG @ GamePro |
|
GamePro has a little piece titled <a href="http://www.gamepro.com/gamepro/domestic/games/features/45212.shtml" target="_blank">The Changing Face of the RPG</a> that takes a quick look at the trend of including RPG elements in others genres:<blockquote><em>As a genre, role-playing games have survived the rise of Nintendo and the fall of cartridge-based home consoles; they've outlived the fighting game boom and weathered the arcade bust. But as competition increases and more and more games integrate elements once exclusively found in RPGs, the real question is: Can the RPG survive itself?
<br>
<br>What makes a role-playing game a role-playing game? Is it the character-building, the intricate story line? Likeable characters? Or some mix of the above? It's interesting that such a seemingly narrow genre definition, role-playing, can be used so effortlessly to describe games as wildly dissimilar as Diablo II and Final Fantasy X.</em></blockquote> |
Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:55 am |
|
|
yeesh
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Unofficially representing Queens |
quote:
The ability to improve your skill level, in one way or another, is probably the foundation for the entire RPG genre...
I couldn't agree more. |
|
Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:57 am |
|
|
bjon045
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
|
All games increase your skill level....like you get upgrades to your ship in raiden, upgrade your skills in gauntlet legends etc etc.
For me a true rpg is where you tell your what to do and possibly how to do it but you don't actually do it, that is the difference. In diablo you click everytime you want to do something, in a game like wasteland you just tell them to attack and they do the rest.
I agree with the article in general and it is getting increasingly difficult to identify what is an RPG and what isn't. About 10-15 years ago it was a simple matter but as games are getting more complicated these days the lines between the genres are blurring. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing but I have to admit I did quite enjoy gothic 2  |
|
Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:14 pm |
|
|
Hindukönig
Guards Lieutenant
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 170
Location: Halle (Saale) / Nuremberg [Germany] |
quote:
Originally posted by bjon045
For me a true rpg is where you tell your what to do and possibly how to do it but you don't actually do it, that is the difference. In diablo you click everytime you want to do something, in a game like wasteland you just tell them to attack and they do the rest.
So, every RTS is an RPG for you?
I consider "skill improving" the best description for RPGs. Sure, in other games you can upgrade your ship for instance, but this isn't part of the character development. |
|
Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:19 pm |
|
|
bjon045
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hindukönig
So, every RTS is an RPG for you?
I consider "skill improving" the best description for RPGs. Sure, in other games you can upgrade your ship for instance, but this isn't part of the character development.
Of course not  I agree there are other aspects to what defines an RPG. But saying skill improving isn't really adequate either as where do you draw the line - is spending points to increase your pilots skills considered an RPG then? I guess I don't really know how to define an rpg...
What I would consider to be an rpg:
Bards Tale, Wasteland, Quest for glory, Gold box games, Realms of arkania, Gothic (an RPG with action elements)
What I would consider to not be an rpg:
Warcraft, Diablo (A clickfest with some roleplaying elements), Grand Theft Auto: San andreas (Wouldn't this be an rpg if skill improving is an rpg)
Jagged Alliance - Sirtech loved to call it a Strategic Roleplaying game if I recall correctly. And that's what I would call it too, except I would just say a strategic game with role playing elements. |
|
Mon Jul 11, 2005 3:46 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Hindukönig
quote:
Originally posted by bjon045
For me a true rpg is where you tell your what to do and possibly how to do it but you don't actually do it, that is the difference. In diablo you click everytime you want to do something, in a game like wasteland you just tell them to attack and they do the rest.
So, every RTS is an RPG for you?
I consider "skill improving" the best description for RPGs. Sure, in other games you can upgrade your ship for instance, but this isn't part of the character development.
In your definition a lot of rts's would be rpgs, like wc3. Your definition is way to broad and includes games like republic the revolution, black and white, Ganglands, gauntlet legends, zelda and beyond black and white (since you increase your heart skill) GTO, and a host of other non rpgs. Why is it so incocievable to define an rpg by the actual words of its title? Role Playing Game.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:12 pm |
|
|
Hindukönig
Guards Lieutenant
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 170
Location: Halle (Saale) / Nuremberg [Germany] |
@bjon045 and @Roqua: You both seem to forget there is something called "focus". The focus is defined by the main gameplay. Sure, many games have RPG elements nowadays. And many RPGs have Actiongame elements. So what?
If skill-improving is the "main part" of a game and essential for getting through, then yes, it's an RPG in my broad definition.
Just my two Euro-cents.
quote:
Why is it so incocievable to define an rpg by the actual words of its title? Role Playing Game.
Because you're playing a role in every adventure, ego-shooter and jump'n'run. I'd like to think this isn't what you had in mind.
[edit]Okay, another definition I've heard: An RPG is a game where you, you personally, have to define a character. This is absolutely agreeable for Pen&Pen-RPGs. But then again, Gothic and every other computer-game, where you aren't able to create an own character in the beginning, couldn't be called an RPG any more (even though the protagonist of Gothic isn't much defined and leaves room for imagination of the player).[/edit] |
|
Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:46 pm |
|
|
yeesh
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Unofficially representing Queens |
Role-playing is a COMPLETELY social activity. You can't do it in single-player game. The difference between playing D&D with a bunch of friends and playing Planescape: Torment or BGII is that there's nobody playing the computer games with you. You can define your character or characters any way you want, but at the end of the day the computer just doesn't care if you're carefully choosing the correct choice in each situation to match the complex backstory you've conjured up for him/her/them, or just randomly selecting dialogue choices; it's just a computer. No people to role-play with = no role-play. EVER!
Except, of course, in multiplayer games. But you could role-play just as easy in Everquest and in Couterstrike as in D&D Online.
And the names we give genres are not inherent definitions. Shooters and RPGs and Sports games can be Action-packed, but that doesn't make them Action games. Plenty of RPGs and shooters have you go on Adventures, but that doesn't make them Adventure games. Just about any decent game requires Strategy, but we all know what we mean by Strategy games. And of course, just about every game has you play some sort of role, from God to space marine to Italian plumber trying to rescue the princess. But that doesn't make them all RPGs. |
|
Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:47 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
The diference is in one game you are the role, and in a rpg, you play a role. Its a very simple concept. If you are the role you are not playing a role, and thus you are not playing an rpg. You write nonsense yeesh.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:05 pm |
|
|
yeesh
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Unofficially representing Queens |
quote:
The diference is in one game you are the role, and in a rpg, you play a role. Its a very simple concept. If you are the role you are not playing a role, and thus you are not playing an rpg.
Anyone who understands what Roqua means, please raise your hand. And translate. |
|
Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:46 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Shoot me for entering this debate...in a shooter or any other game where you "play a role" (Gordan Freeman in HL, to pick an example), the player is the role. When Gordan aims at a Combine Soldier's head, the player has direct and total control - the player is Gordan.
In an RPG, the player is abstracted through the character. You might select an enemy for the character to attack but the success of the attack is interpreted through the character's stats and abilities. You are now playing a role represented by a character with independant abilities, rather than being the character.
Roqua takes an absolutist approach to this -- any game that doesn't strictly adhere to this approach is not a true RPG, including realtime games by definition because the player's reflexes have some input in the result.
-----
@Roqua, going back to a previous comment - why can't RPGs be defined by the name? Well, for starters the name was not historically chosen to represent actual "roleplaying" but because they were intended to approximate PnPs with the limited technology they had - as you know. I don't recall much roleplaying in the first Ultimas or The Bard's Tale (although it's been a while)...how can you demand the genre stay true to a term that wasn't actually intended to denote genuine roleplaying in the first place?l
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:21 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
Shoot me for entering this debate...in a shooter or any other game where you "play a role" (Gordan Freeman in HL, to pick an example), the player is the role. When Gordan aims at a Combine Soldier's head, the player has direct and total control - the player is Gordan.
In an RPG, the player is abstracted through the character. You might select an enemy for the character to attack but the success of the attack is interpreted through the character's stats and abilities. You are now playing a role represented by a character with independant abilities, rather than being the character.
Roqua takes an absolutist approach to this -- any game that doesn't strictly adhere to this approach is not a true RPG, including realtime games by definition because the player's reflexes have some input in the result.
-----
@Roqua, going back to a previous comment - why can't RPGs be defined by the name? Well, for starters the name was not historically chosen to represent actual "roleplaying" but because they were intended to approximate PnPs with the limited technology they had - as you know. I don't recall much roleplaying in the first Ultimas or The Bard's Tale (although it's been a while)...how can you demand the genre stay true to a term that wasn't actually intended to denote genuine roleplaying in the first place?l
I never said rt games cannot be true rpgs, I just really don't like rt. Its twiytch games that can't. For instance, NWN is a RT game, but my physical limitations do not handycap my skill at playing nwn (just my good taste). On the other hand, Darklands was a great game in every way, but the combat engine was very poor in my opinion. But Darklands is still one of my favorite rpgs, even though it has poor combat in my opinion. But combat really isn't a huge part of Darklands (at least not the way I played it).
My answer to the rpg genre never intending to make rpgs is that they did the best they could with what they had, as you state. And the more and more able people are to making real rpgs, with real role playing choices and options, providing numerous, non generic and event changing choices to provide a truer and truer role playing experience, the further away they are from doing this.
From Darklands, to Realms of Arkania, to Albion, to Fallouts, to BGs, attaempts at providing an open platform for free form choice and role playing was attempted, and each game shined in certain ways. Realms of Arkania really tried to present people with as many choices and possiblities as possible. A lot of time they were stupid and generic, but the tried. The answers wern't handed to players on a platter, and the next step wasn't pointed out with a big red arrow.
You could run a pen and paper game like a modern crpg, and have the bow user shoot at a can with an elastic to represent shooting the bow at an enemy, and as the bow character gains skill in game, the player could move the can closer, and upgrade to a wristrocket and then a bb gun. But that wouldn't be an rpg anymore, even if it is more fun and involving.
I can't fault crpg developers for doing the best the could with the limitations they had. I can fault the devs of today for not even trying to make a "rpg" with absolutly no attempt at including any role playing at all. The term rpg has become so dilluted as to include any game the devs claim to be an rpg, such as Paper Mario and other nonsense. Things are classified for a reason. If you placed an order at pizzahutonline and they brought you a teddy bear instead of pizza, don't you think they should change their name to more accuratly reflect the product they offer are? Don't you think MTV should change their name since the last time they played a video was the year 1415? Aren't you glad monopoly the computer game reflects its real life counter part? Rpgs, no matter the medium presented in, should be rpgs. And the medium should only limit the core of what a thing is as little as possible and should improve to more accuratly reflect what it is when technology improves.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:26 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
I never said rt games cannot be true rpgs, I just really don't like rt. Its twiytch games that can't.
Hmm. My error then; I thought we had this discussion previously. Or was it that you thought RT was less RPG? Anyway, my mistake.
quote:
I can't fault crpg developers for doing the best the could with the limitations they had. I can fault the devs of today for not even trying to make a "rpg" with absolutly no attempt at including any role playing at all.
This is a qualitative jugdment and is better suited to saying "I think this is bad RPG because bla bla". I held many a PnP session back in the day that was little more than a monster/loot hunt -- a dungeon crawl. I see no reason why that isn't valid as a game. It isn't quality roleplaying, just the same as my old PnP sessions weren't always "quality" but that doesn't mean they weren't PnP roleplaying sessions. In these cases, there may not be many (or even any) high-level choices to make. The roleplaying is in the combat role itself.
quote:
If you placed an order at pizzahutonline and they brought you a teddy bear instead of pizza, don't you think they should change their name to more accuratly reflect the product they offer are?
You've used this many a time and it remains a spurious argument. There are many Real Time Strategy games that don't have much/any strategy. Heck, there a straight-up Strategy games that don't require strategy. These are simply bad strategy games rather than "some undefined genre without strategy". If I watch a comedy on TV that simply isn't funny, it doesn't cease to be called a "comedy" and renamed a drama.
When I buy Diablo, I don't get a pizza or an old shoe. I get a game where the RPG elements are minimised to a dungeon crawl with no higher-level choices. This isn't a case of ordering a pizza and getting a teddy-bear.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:56 am |
|
|
bjon045
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
|
Not an RPG:
Half Life 2
Contains some RPG elements:
System Shock 2 (only reason it is not in the role playing section is pretty much all the game your just killing things not much interaction with npc's and the skill system is pretty primitive ala No one lives forever 1&2.
RPG:
Arx Fatalis
Yet all look the same if you just glance at the screen when someone is running around :p |
|
Tue Jul 12, 2005 2:38 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
I never said rt games cannot be true rpgs, I just really don't like rt. Its twiytch games that can't.
Hmm. My error then; I thought we had this discussion previously. Or was it that you thought RT was less RPG? Anyway, my mistake.
quote:
I can't fault crpg developers for doing the best the could with the limitations they had. I can fault the devs of today for not even trying to make a "rpg" with absolutly no attempt at including any role playing at all.
This is a qualitative jugdment and is better suited to saying "I think this is bad RPG because bla bla". I held many a PnP session back in the day that was little more than a monster/loot hunt -- a dungeon crawl. I see no reason why that isn't valid as a game. It isn't quality roleplaying, just the same as my old PnP sessions weren't always "quality" but that doesn't mean they weren't PnP roleplaying sessions. In these cases, there may not be many (or even any) high-level choices to make. The roleplaying is in the combat role itself.
quote:
If you placed an order at pizzahutonline and they brought you a teddy bear instead of pizza, don't you think they should change their name to more accuratly reflect the product they offer are?
You've used this many a time and it remains a spurious argument. There are many Real Time Strategy games that don't have much/any strategy. Heck, there a straight-up Strategy games that don't require strategy. These are simply bad strategy games rather than "some undefined genre without strategy". If I watch a comedy on TV that simply isn't funny, it doesn't cease to be called a "comedy" and renamed a drama.
When I buy Diablo, I don't get a pizza or an old shoe. I get a game where the RPG elements are minimised to a dungeon crawl with no higher-level choices. This isn't a case of ordering a pizza and getting a teddy-bear.
In your old campaigns, no matter what the plot was or the setting, the players still played a role. They controlled characters, infused them with life, and had the opertunity to go about how they interacted with the world. They could of had their characters stop in a room and get in an argument over loot or which corridor to go down. The possibilities are endless of what they could have done. They chose to treat the campaign as a hack n' slash. It could have gone totally different. But the choice was there. Unless you said there is a no talking spell on the dungeon and they had to do the campaign your way. Then you just took the role playing out of the game.
You, as the gm, set the stage, the players characters enter the stage, and play a role, ad hock, as they see fit (or as they see how their characters would see fit). Rpgs give you a blank book with a setting and situation, and the characters fill it up with their adventures.
Freedom, choice and the ability to play the role you want as you see fit are the corner stones of roleplaying, along with character creation and growth. You can role play without playing a role playing game, as many people do on some forums that offer the roleplaying forum, and you can have character creation and development in a game that isn't an rpg. Is someone includes most of the elements, I can see calling it an rpg. But some games, like Diablo 1 and 2 (which are good games that sold millions of copies, I'm not saying they're bad games) only included character development: it had no character creation and no choices (besides on character development). There are wrestling games that provide more rpg elements than that (character creation and development).
I'm saying if non rpgs have more traditional rpg elements t5han most games labelled as rpgs, something is wrong and the genre is dilluted beyond and way to classify it and define it. Whats your definition of an rpg Dhruin? Any game that developer says it is? Is Paper Mario RPG an RPG? Why not? It has rpg in its title? Is that wrestling game an rpg? Is wc3? IS Republic the revolution (which had character creation, development, many, many, choices, and lots of freedom and multiple paths to the ending)? Is the ufo's and x-coms rpgs? Is silent storm? Is x2 or homeworld? Is privateer? Is zelda and beyond black and white? Is black and white? Is romance of the three kingdoms and heroes of might and magic? Is silent hunter 3? Is nascar?
There has to be a definition and a way to classify. Just as will science and species, when something deviates so far from what it used to be, it gets a new label and name. Homo sapiens are differnt than homo erectus. Hybrids get put into a diffrent catagory, evolution makes new things and they are all properly classified with new names. An rpg cannot be everything, because that turns it into nothing.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:39 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:25 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
