| |
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
|
|
|
|
Ican
Captain of the Guard
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 185
Location: UK |
God .... it's getting a bit heated in here 
I think part of the problem as to what constitutes an RPG ....is that there has never been an exact definition of one. We all precisely know what an RTS is ..or a simulation, sports game etc.
To some people an RPG equates to control over character statistics, to others a branched storyline and to the rest to be sent on "missions" and "quests". In truth an RPG is probably any mix of these elements. The ratio matters not.
Can I propose Minesweeper as an RPG ?  |
Sun Jan 25, 2004 1:05 pm |
|
|
Seth
Last Man Standing
Joined: 23 Jan 2002
Posts: 1008
Location: Faerun |
Yes, Diablo didn't do it for me what BG1 did. And although I didn't like the game (the reasons already posted by others), I have to admit that Diablo opened new doors for the future masterpieces. So yes I would say that Diablo is the most overrated as an RPG but not as a new generation game.
@Ican, if you add merchant (so you can sell those mines and buy better equipment) and level possibilities I don't see why not.
_________________
Money - An article which may be used as a universal passport to everywhere except heaven, and as a universal provider of everything except happiness. |
|
Sun Jan 25, 2004 5:38 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
The Diablo/shooter comparison obviously depends on the character class you choose. It clearly doesn't apply to the hand-to-hand fighter classes, but the game's definitely got some shoot-em-up blood in its veins. I think it's a child of Gauntlet and... erm... Heroquest? 
The most important difference with Arx was that it had quite a few multiple-solution puzzles, including opportunities for diplomacy rather than violence. Additionally, it had "things to do" that were optional and often frivolous, but that added depth and interactivity to the gameworld (like baking pies, robbing banks), much like Gothic. It certainly does have a lot of fighting in it, but it also has as lot of choice and variety, which is what I think sets it apart from Diablo and DS.
@Ican, you're right, there's no agreed formula for an RPG, and I doubt that's likely to change soon. Personally I hope it doesn't... as long as there's no checklist to follow, RPG developers will have to think for themselves and concentrate on making a good game above all other concerns (like, "does it meet genre conventions?"). Like you say, other genres have their recipes well and truly established, and this can lead to fear/apathy from developers & publishers to stray from the accepted path... meaning we get many very similar games, and have to wait a long time to see a title that even tries to shake things up in its genre (eg, 3 years from Half Life to Halo).
On the other hand, look at all the popular/successful CRPGs of recent years: BG2, DS, Arx, the Gothics, Deus Ex... among all those games, there's little agreement on how to approach "RPG-like" content and mechanics, and I believe the genre is more diverse and better off for it. Of course there's the downside that this makes RPGs more of an unknown quantity to publishers, therefore less get made... but I guess that's another story. |
|
Sun Jan 25, 2004 7:24 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
Still, Arx WAS mostly about the fighting. The small amount of extras had very little impact on the overall experience.
Of course there are things all CRPGs agree on. Progress through various accomplishments, increasing of the character's attributes, an attribute/skill system, a story with more or less branches, and a more complex inventory than just your weapons.
Stuff that sets RPG apart from each other are:
more/less advanced dialogue
more/less advanced skill and/or class system
more/less advanced combat
more/less world size
more/less NPC and environment interaction
more/less races/playable characters
more/less advanced quest-system/main-plot flexibility
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:04 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Strange, I did very little fighting in Arx. I only fought when attacked as I tried for diplomatic solutions wherever possible. Different play styles, different perceptions I guess. I enjoy having the choice.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sun Jan 25, 2004 11:44 pm |
|
|
mkreku
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 112
Location: Uppsala, Sweden |
I also did very little fighting in Arx. Mostly because it was the monsters that did all the fighting. I just stood there with my rusty sword, getting my ass whopped. Of course, I never bothered to buy the full game after wimping out in the demo.
_________________
Swedes visit NordicGamers for the latest game reviews in swedish! |
|
Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:28 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Role-play is defined so in turn RPG is defined. It is a game where you can act out a role. Just like you can figure out what a movie actor is by knowing what a movie and an actor is.
I think a person's personal background is important on figuring out what their own view of what a RPG is. Did you grow up on pen and paper games? What was the era of CRPG's when you started playing (Zork, EGA, VGA, or graphics card?) What part of the world are you from? Etc.
From some of the posts in here of people explaining what a RPG is, Republic the Revoltion would be the greatest RPG ever, but I think when they actually played it they would say it wasn't an RPG even though it has every RPG element they think essential for an RPG in abundance (or what I think they think is essential).
To me I am adamant about an RPG not having twitch-combat to be considered an RPG. I just don't understand how people believe they could be playing a "role-playing" game when the "role" they are playing is influenced more by your skill than the character's whose role you are playing. But I don't care any more.
The only binding factor of what makes an rpg (from all the views I have seen or discussions I have been in on this site) is the ability to talk to any npc that you can currently reach over and over. So if you can repetedly talk to the npc's in the game (even if it is just to get an "this person has nothing more to say to you" message) then you are playing an RPG.
This is just what I think. But at least it would rule out games like the wrestleing game Puuk said was an rpg in his editorial.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:51 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Strange, I did very little fighting in Arx. I only fought when attacked as I tried for diplomatic solutions wherever possible. Different play styles, different perceptions I guess. I enjoy having the choice.
That is indeed strange. Considering I faced hordes of rats, spiders, undead, goblins etc. in Arx. Did you talk your way past them? What dialogue-options did you use?
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:34 am |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
Too broad a definition of RPG is being used.
Technically speaking Pong is a CRPG.
You take on the role of the Paddle, who faces his nemisis Other Paddle in a desperate battle to keep Ball from getting past you and scoring points.
All games are RPGs because you take the role of something you are not.
So obviously the RPG we're talking about is more specific than that... but what makes it so?
Why is D2 not a fantastic RPG? You take the role of one of several types of hero, you name them, and you follow their career from "Oh god... not a rat!!!" to "Oh look... Mephisto.". Starting weak and getting strong is one of the most widely used staples of CPRGs... in fact, character advancement is one of my favorite elements of a game. A game can have a weak story if it's fun to level up.
So is the ability to advance your character needed for a CRPG? I would say yes... other games where the character does not advance are typically called adventure games.
That's one element down, perhaps, so what else is there?
Personally, I'll stop there. If you have a character that gains in permanent l strength over time (power-ups won't cut it) then it's good enough for me.
Thus for me Megaman (the later ones) is as much a CRPG as Gothic or Fallout.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:49 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by corwin
Strange, I did very little fighting in Arx. I only fought when attacked as I tried for diplomatic solutions wherever possible...
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
That is indeed strange. Considering I faced hordes of rats, spiders, undead, goblins etc. in Arx. Did you talk your way past them? What dialogue-options did you use?
[Arx sub-thread]
lol... dialogue options. I'm guessing that was a rhetorical question? 
[spoilers]
If you look for info and obtain the right items, the times when you have to fight goblins are actually quite rare. There aren't that many rats and spiders. Plenty of undead who don't like to negotiate, but the crypt is optional (I skipped it by accident on my first game). There are occasions where others will fight meaning you don't have to (again, sometimes dependent on whether you have the right item).
There are, undeniably, some enemy-filled areas too, like the ratmen caves or any of the Ylside areas. But then, I remember from the Arx boards that some found the Ylsides so tough they just sneaked past them instead of fighting (and the levels were designed to allow this too - just a shame they didn't give an xp award for it). There are a lot of ways to avoid combat in Arx - if you weren't looking for them, it's understandable to have missed them.
[/spoilers]
Personally, I did fight a fair bit in Arx, because I enjoyed the combat whether playing as a sneak, a tank or a mage (which is something I don't find in most RPGs). As well as being fun in a general kind of way, the combat gameplay was significantly different for each character type, which I think is important. Initially, I did explore all the non-violent avenues first (that's just the way I play most RPGs), but I played it 3 times so I had plenty of opportunities to try different approaches. On the whole, I didn't really see it as a combat-focused game; as corwin says, the way you play it determines the kind of gameplay it delivers (one sign of a good RPG, do you think?)
[/Arx]
EX is right, the literal definition of "role-playing game" isn't quite enough. The names we give to things rarely make sense literally - look at all the genre titles for games, film, music, literature, etc. and you'll find plenty of examples that are inaccurate or not descriptive enough. If this were not the case, I might have been able to do my old job (land surveyor) by staring at the ground all day... if that's all there was to it, I may never have quit
Roqua, about "twitch-combat" - to me, that term implies almost (if not totally) reflex-based action, which I agree wouldn't make much sense in RPGs. But (and I'm not sure if this is what you're saying) if you're referring to any realtime, reflex-based action, I don't think the argument is logical - as long as character abilities are clearly represented in gameplay, and do have a significant bearing on the outcome, I can see no reason to disallow it. You described gameplay which "is influenced more by your skill than the character's whose role you are playing," which brings us into subjective territory again - each of us has to gauge the weight of player input vs. character ability for each game, and the balance/imbalance we perceive isn't something that everyone will agree on. Personally, I think UUW, Deus Ex, Arx Fatalis and Gothic are games that struck a good balance between stat-based and reflex-based action - some reflex-based gaming skills are helpful, but are only effective if you are playing to your character's strengths - which I find acceptable in an RPG (in fact I usually prefer it to turn-based or Bioware-style pseudo-realtime). And of course player ability has to be a factor in some way, otherwise you don't have a game (of any type) - even in a totally turn-based, stat-based RPG, success is still dependent upon player skill in the form of strategy and tactics, lateral thinking, etc. To allow one type of player skill and not another would be inconsistent and unfair to some gamers, and to abandon player skill altogether would leave you with a non-interactive series of stat-based calculations (ie, a random event that does reflect character abilities, but not a game).
I'm not saying you were suggesting either of those things though, Roqua, I don't have enough information to know for sure what you meant. I'm just speculating. I'd be interested to know which games you feel are too twitch-based to be considered RPGs? |
|
Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:44 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
Just as an action movie needs some things blown up (preferrably buildings and vehicles), an RPG needs some elements. And there are some that almost all games that are called RPGs have (listed above).
quote:
Personally, I think UUW, Deus Ex, Arx Fatalis and Gothic are games that struck a good balance between stat-based and reflex-based action - some reflex-based gaming skills are helpful, but are only effective if you are playing to your character's strengths - which I find acceptable in an RPG (in fact I usually prefer it to turn-based or Bioware-style pseudo-realtime). And of course player ability has to be a factor in some way, otherwise you don't have a game (of any type) - even in a totally turn-based, stat-based RPG, success is still dependent upon player skill in the form of strategy and tactics, lateral thinking, etc. To allow one type of player skill and not another would be inconsistent and unfair to some gamers, and to abandon player skill altogether would leave you with a non-interactive series of stat-based calculations (ie, a random event that does reflect character abilities, but not a game).
Definitely not.
A character who knows how to swing a sword should be left alone to do it. A human who fumbles around with his mouse and keyboard while directing every move of his character is just silly. Every chop or thrust becomes slow and overdone.
Point and click lets the game mechanics and rules work out well, the human doing general directions only.
Tell your character(s) WHAT to do, not HOW to do it. Because they are supposed to be the people skilled in magic, not you. This kind of shows in crappy games like Arx, where a high leveled mage still can fail the most basic spells because one of your movement was too fast for the mouse to register. Thus resulting in pure disgust, resulting in another try with the mouse, resulting in another failure due to frustration taking the better of your motorics.
Taking on the MENTALITY to actually role-play your character through dialogue (which is easier to manipulate through game mechanics, if you have a character skilled in speech), advancement and quest solving is what it's all about.
As for Arx, even if you stealth and so throughout the entire game, you'll fail at the end boss.
"Well, golly gee gosh, I teleported and ran through the hordes of enemies, all the way down to hell. I took the stealthy path!"
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:28 pm |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
But Hexy, while your character (who is supposedly skilled in magic, let's say) requires you to use your reflexes to use some spells in some games (such as Arx, like you mentioned), he is still skilled in magic: You cannot make such spells in real life by waving a staff around in a certain pattern. But you can in Arx, due to your character's abilities. In Gothic, for example, you can be the best "twitch-based" gamer in the world, but you're still not going to hurt a troll with a level 2 character swinging a rusty sword. His stats need to be higher, and he needs a better weapon. If you think you're character should be the one killing the monster, not you, why don't you have him make his own dialogue selection with NPCs as well?
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:35 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
I think Hexy's telling us he prefers the point & click system, which is fine. Of course that doesn't necessarily equate to a coherent argument against reflex-based action in RPGs...
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
A character who knows how to swing a sword should be left alone to do it....
Tell your character(s) WHAT to do, not HOW to do it.
quote:
Originally posted by MageofFire
If you think you're character should be the one killing the monster, not you, why don't you have him make his own dialogue selection with NPCs as well?
Good example, MageofFire. A good RPG has to be challenging and demanding to the players themselves, not just the numbers on their character sheets.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
A human who fumbles around with his mouse and keyboard while directing every move of his character is just silly. Every chop or thrust becomes slow and overdone...
News to me. Which game(s) in particular are you talking about? Off the top of my head, good RPGs I have played with reflex-based action: Daggerfall, Morrowind, Ultima Underworld 1&2, System Shock 2 (action/RPG, I know), Deus Ex, Arx Fatalis, Gothic... with all the honesty and objectivity I can muster, I can't apply your quote to any of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
This kind of shows in crappy games like Arx, where a high leveled mage still can fail the most basic spells because one of your movement was too fast for the mouse to register. Thus resulting in pure disgust, resulting in another try with the mouse, resulting in another failure due to frustration taking the better of your motorics.
Wow... sounds like you need a better mouse. Or maybe slow down those lightning reflexes of yours. Seriously... I suspect you may have been over-egging the pudding slightly, but if that was honestly your experience with Arx, then you have my sincerest condolences. I hope your motorics get better. |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:50 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
There is a pretty indepth post some where down in this forum that covers the fact that twitch-based systems cannot be RPGs. It was basically me and Hexy vs. everyone else. I believe our side won, but the other side probably thinks they won. (But I think me and Hexy do not share the same opinions on what a good rpg is).
I think Arx, Gothic, and DX are good action games with RPG elements. I think DS, Diablo, and games like that are bad RPGs.
Dialogue is another example of telling the character whose role you are playing WHAT to do (or say), not telling him HOW to say it. A good example of stats and skills desiding dialoque would be FO (1&2) and ToEE. But even if you get the standard IE good choice, nuetral choice, and evil choice you still are telling your character what to say, not trying to hit a combination of keys and minipulating the mouse to move their mouths to get them to say the sentence you want them to say.
Having my ability with a keyboard and mouse be a huge factor in desiding the outcome of a battle makes me the role I am playing, so I would be roleplaying myself if I played Gothic. Just like if I wanted to try and bash down a door in BG2 the computer told me to squeeze on the mouse to see if I was strong enough in real life to have the character whose role I am supposedly playing be able to bash down the door in the game. That is not role play. That is just play. I'm not saying it wouldn't be fun and add some excitment to the game, I just don't think it could possibly be roleplaying.
If you were playing Fall-Out 2 and the game wouldn't let you have any NPC companions because you were to ugly and uncharismatic in real life, but your character in game had enough charisma to have 1 npc, is that role-play?
The only thing about me that should have any impact in a crpg is my mind, because that gives you the ability to play the role and tell the character what to do, not how to do it. I really believe this and I don't understand how anyone can disagree, but they do. Every arguement someone gives always has fallicies and doesn't stand up to logic. Or at least I don't see how it does.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:41 am |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
The only thing about me that should have any impact in a crpg is my mind, because that gives you the ability to play the role and tell the character what to do, not how to do it.
You believe this, but is isn't a fact, just your opinion. We are talking about video games, not Maxwell's Equations. There are no rules or guidelines that define an RPG strictly.
I can kill an orc with a sword in Gothic (if I have the stats and equipment), but probably not in real life. So, would you define Gothic as an RPG if I just click on an enemy and my character spun off and did its own thing a la Dungeon Siege?
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:33 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
