| |
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
|
|
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
[quote="Hexy"]
quote:
Your 5th level swordsman does not have a mind, much less the ability to speak or interact in a meaningful manner with the virtual world. How does he know to use a sword? Because he obtained a skill or feat (thanks to the game programmers who provided the feature) to use it, plus someone directs him. However, when you play him, the amalgam of your abilities, your will, and your mind are projected and incorporated within your character's limited abilities to make the resultant character much more.
quote:
*Sigh*
Again, must I repeat that the character is the PERSONIFICATION of A ROLE?
I was talking about character abilities versus player abilities and the melding of the two. Both player and character possess mental and physical abilities.
quote:
It has nothing to do with the A.I. or whatever.
Good, then don't bring it up. I never mentioned it.
quote:
The level 5 fighter presents the role of a not-so-skilled fighter. Thus, it should ACT as that, not like a not-so-skilled fighter being poorly controlled by an even less skillfull fighter... IN COMBAT.
Again, there's a differance controlling every move and controlling the character IN GENERAL. The latter gives more freedom to the role.
Who said I advocated controlling every move? I don't think I need to direct my character to eat, to bathe, and to use the bathroom because those aren't interesting. Combat, on the other hand, is pertinent, interesting, and usually fun. (And a significant portion of gameplay in most RPGs.) Giving control here, whether through tactical decisions or through directed actions, seems to be a wise choice. What gives freedom to the role is the freedom to which the character/player can express that role in the world. We're not talking about a PnP game--we're talking about a virtual one where hardcoded rules and limitations are the norm, not the exception. Also, you seem wed to the idea that roleplaying stems from character classes or professions and thus roleplaying must keep in line with the expectations for these classes.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:48 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Korplem
 I dont understand how you can think that rolling dice is the sole determinant of roleplaying. The fact that you are pretending to be a different person (which inherently means that YOU control the character not some magical dice) in a world or a story that you can effect is the only thing you need to role play.
In every game I have ever played I have been in a world or story I can effect. From Mario Brothers, to Yatzee, to Black&White.
I understyand that you mean have a dirrect impact on the story and have it play through differetly everytime you play it. Then I say Black&White does this.
Dialogue options are non-existing in old CRPGs that no one will ever say is not CRPGs. And so is an ability to effect the world more than just advancing through the story.
By you guys's standard Arx Fatalis (my favorite recent action RPG's) is an RPG, not an action game with strong RPG elements, but it had no dialoque options at all. But it did have character creation which Gothic doesn't.
There has to be a line drwan some where. I played a LOTR game for the Fellowship of the ring movie for PS2. It had character development, and twitch-based combat that was effected by my character development. Is this an RPG? Why not?
Or what if a game had great dialogue options, and a chance to have a large impact on the world, but no stats, character creation, character development, or any other "RPG elements"? Is it still an RPG?
What is the minumum amount of "RPG elements" a game must have to be a real RPG? What are the ones that have to be imcluded to be consider a real RPG?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu Nov 06, 2003 2:16 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
1.What if we advanced technology to the point where we had a holodeck like on Star Trek, and could wander a virtual world and interact with virtual beings. The NPCs in the hologram view you as a huge warrior. The NPCs and environment physically react to you as if you were incredibly strong. But, your own body still controlled movements of the virtual character that the NPCs and environment react to, as well as dialog. Would you write this off as not an RPG, even though you are completely are the character and stats enhance your own ability? To me this would be the ultimate imersive RPG, and I give this extreme example because I don't really understand the objection to player controlling character movement more directly.
Yes, but that is QUITE different from controlling the big guy's every action with... a KEYBOARD and a MOUSE, while sitting in a comfy chair. |
|
Thu Nov 06, 2003 6:41 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
However, it's a HUGE difference having a twitch-based game like Gothic and a twitch-based game like Diablo. In Diablo, the combat is more up to the character than in Gothic or Arx Fatalis. Thus Diablo has more Role-playing in that point-of-view.
Plus, turn based may give you a more realistic approach in the sense of character role-playing in combat, but takes away in overall realism (combat becomes quirky and dissorted).
Pause and play is thusly the best form of combat.
I can't resist giving Hexy a poke on this topic. 
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Diablo's combat is more reliant on the character's skills than Gothic?
As for pause-play being the best form of combat, I have to disagree. First, this statement doesn't support the position you've taken in this debate about action-combat removing a game's eligibility to be called an RPG.
quote:
You still disregard the fact that your own skills should play as little role as possible, if you're ACTUALLY going to play A ROLE in a REALISTIC way. You should CONTROL the character, as in general actions and personality-choices, NOT the characters actual skills.
So, your own skills should play as little role as possible - as long as the combat isn't turn-based because (although being the best system for the goal of the player's skill having no impact) this reduces your sense of realism?
When I'm playing Baldur's Gate and I have one of my character's cast a spell, there's absolutely no way to tell whether the spell will be cast this round or the next. I assume that since this introduces an element of the player's skill into it (pressing pause at the start of a round instead of partway through), BG can't be a RPG. Anyway, TB gives me better control, encourages deeper strategies and introduces a sense of suspense which I find superior to pause-play.
I'm off-topic. 
@Roqua - why must a line be drawn? If a developer sets out to make a RPG and does a lousy job of it, why can't it just be a bad RPG? I can't imagine fans of other genres being so concerned that one of their games might get mis-labelled.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Thu Nov 06, 2003 8:11 am |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
has to be a line drwan some where.
If there must be a line drawn somewhere, just to make you happy, then I'll draw it...
V The RPG Line V
------------------------------
| Action Adventure Puzzle |
| FPS Racer Flying-sim |
| Every Other Type |
-------------------------------
There, now the rpgs encompass all other types of games and ascend to the King of All Games. Maybe now you can get back to trying to win a Darwin Award or whatever it is you do... 
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Thu Nov 06, 2003 12:33 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Yes, but that is QUITE different from controlling the big guy's every action with... a KEYBOARD and a MOUSE, while sitting in a comfy chair.
How so? This scenario is fundamentally the same as the one you are saying disqualifies Gothic from being an RPG. You still need to have physical skills to successfully play this holodeck game. Even though your strength attribute is high in this virtual world, you can't win if you can't swing a sword. Both the character's and player's attributes are melded and both must be adequate to handle whatever situation. You can regress this scenario from holodeck down to full body control and feedback device, then back to keyboard and mouse, and the fact remains that you have to be manually skillful enough to use these input devices to control your character.
Examining combat in the holodeck game, what makes sense: realtime hand to hand combat, or stats/turn based? I would say that it would be quite unnatural to meet an enemy in this type of world, then stop and play rock-paper-scissors(or roll dice) to see who wins.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:34 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that Diablo's combat is more reliant on the character's skills than Gothic?
As for pause-play being the best form of combat, I have to disagree. First, this statement doesn't support the position you've taken in this debate about action-combat removing a game's eligibility to be called an RPG.
Finally I got through to ya, D-man.
Anyway, in Gothic you have the key-combos, which make you controll the character's movements more (swing right, swing left, lift sword, back, chop etc. instead of attack here, *click*, attack there, *click*).
And, in pause-and-play you can pause as much as you need to, thus making it more like a TB (making combat more dependable on your character), BUT you get the fast paced... ness of RT. You know, one of the usual argument for pro-p-and-p.
And, of course, TB doesn't make anything more tactical. It is unrealistically user-friendly care-bear-ish in that regard. Plus, of course, easily exploitable. As for having difficulty telling which turn it is (even though it matters little due to the faster pace), that is about the only weak point of p-and-p I can think of. Compared to the slow, unflexible and broken down TB combat. |
|
Thu Nov 06, 2003 5:25 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Korplem
If there must be a line drawn somewhere, just to make you happy, then I'll draw it...
V The RPG Line V
------------------------------
| Action Adventure Puzzle |
| FPS Racer Flying-sim |
| Every Other Type |
-------------------------------
There, now the rpgs encompass all other types of games and ascend to the King of All Games. Maybe now you can get back to trying to win a Darwin Award or whatever it is you do...
I am not trying to win a Darwin Award. I just want to be a princess...or a pony. But that is another story.
Shirts are called shirts. Sweaters are called sweaters because they are different than shirts. Same with sweatshirts. Sneakers and shoes. Skirts and kilts might look the same, but they are different.
Different things have different names. I might want to be a princess but I am definitly not into this new-age hippy crap of lumping everything together. If something can be given a name it can be given a definition. And that definition should have the key ingredients that makes that thing seperate from other things. A steam engine needs to run off of steam and things like that, if it runs off of eletric-power it can no longer be considered a steam engine. Simple as that. It lost its core ingredient required to be called a steam engine.
p.s. Go back to hugging trees and smoking the refer you damn hippy
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Fri Nov 07, 2003 3:41 am |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
Different things have different names. I might want to be a princess but I am definitly not into this new-age hippy crap of lumping everything together. If something can be given a name it can be given a definition. And that definition should have the key ingredients that makes that thing seperate from other things. A steam engine needs to run off of steam and things like that, if it runs off of eletric-power it can no longer be considered a steam engine. Simple as that. It lost its core ingredient required to be called a steam engine.
Yes, but it still an engine, and does the same thing, despite different fuel, and internals.
I would vote to give Gothic(and similar) the title RPG, and all the dice rolling games can have "statistical strategic simulator" or some such.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Fri Nov 07, 2003 5:30 am |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
I just want to be a princess...or a pony. But that is another story.
Jung pretty much said what I was going to say...
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Fri Nov 07, 2003 11:57 am |
|
|
fleabitfox
Village Dweller
Joined: 01 Nov 2002
Posts: 4
|
I think I'll jump in here, as this has always bugged me as well.
I really don't agree with the 'everything is a RPG' mantra. Ok.. all movies, games, and in fact anything where you are acting out a different role is an RPG? Um.. no.
RPGs were quite defined when they first hit the scene, specifically the brown D&D books. Roleplaying was very much so all about rolling dice, stats, and playing out your character.
The P&P versions evolved into new forms, such as Traveller, Gamma World (loved playing both of those), GURPS, and so on. But the premise was still the same. It was very much about stats and equipment and rolling dice.
Diablo in *my* opinion is not an RPG. When it was being considered for 'RPG of the Year' I was disgusted. It in no way resembled any RPG I was familiar with. It was a clickfest. Blizzard called it an 'action RPG'. Which I still feel is very much a stretch. It had little in common with roleplaying other than lots of equipment, and the fact there were spells and swords and what-not. Plot? Ha.. right.
Of course, the term RPG has been somewhat redefined. It has been around awhile, so I think there is going to be some differences in how people think of RPGs.
I put them in categories myself.
Action RPGS: These are your Diablo's, Nox's, Divine Divinity (which was better than the prior 2 IMO). Very fun and addicting, I liked them all really. But not actual RPGs at least in my definition of the term.
Console RPGS: A few computer games took this route (Anachronox for instance), but mostly these are for console gaming systems. Your FF's and Zelda's and all that. Fun to play again, but imo, not RPGs.
CRPGs: There are a few flavors of these:
Single Player: You are a loner. For example, Daggerfall and Morrowind and Gothic. RPG'ish, but NOT an RPG imo. The entire premise of RPGs was orginally having a *party* that could deal with threats with their different talents. That was the *point*. You needed a fighter or two, and a cleric, a magic user, and a thiefy type. You can't possibly do this with single player anyting. I will call Gothic an RPG in my head, but it is solidly in the 'not an actual RPG sorta RPG' category.
Party based first person view: Games like Might and Magic. Lots of fun, I enjoyed them. Rather RPG'ish, but started a few trends I never really liked. Non realism. Things like.. gee, it is amazing how we find lots of gold and magic items in barrels and crates all over the place. ugh. MANY games followed this trend, even the IE games. I did NOT like the lack of realism in this regard. But I still liked the games.
Isometric 3rd person view games: Mostly these are your IE games, but there were others, like Arcanum. Very close to P&P RPGS. Closest you could get really, other than the new (buggy) TOEE. Baldurs Gate II had party play, plot, everything. Very cool. Unforunately it wasn't turned based, Which made it a clickfest. Which took away imo, from the aspects of RPGs. But still lots of fun. Space-pause never quite did it for me. 
I really don't have a problem with CRPGs.. or people calling them RPGs. I am now used to others having their own opinion on what makes an RPG. I still feel old school as I am, that it means something very specific to me, but I guess if someone else wants to feel differently, it doesn't hurt a thing.
For me though, if a game is *fun*.. it really doesn't matter if it is an 'RPG' in my definition or not. I feel the closest games to RPGs imo are Plancescape Torment and the Baldurs Gate games, TOEE, oddly enough Wizardy way back when.. um.. not many others really. But it it very hard to make a computer game like an actual RPG. I did not thing NWN was very RPG like, although I enjoyed it. Single player once again, is hardly how it was meant to be played imo. Multiplayer NWN can get very close tho.
Anyways.. enough ramble.. I think RPG is different things to different people. But if it is fun, it really doesn't matter to me if people *want* to call it an RPG. I DID take offense at Diablo being up for RPG of the year.. I may never recover from that.
FleabitFox
_________________
fleabitfox |
|
Sat Nov 08, 2003 6:12 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Some interesting ideas there...but I disagree with a number of things.
I don't think Diablo is much of an RPG either but the argument that it's a click-fest doesn't seem relevant. D&D was all about combat. It evolved from tabletop wargaming, most of the (original) rulebooks related to combat situations, nearly all of the stats are combat-centric and many of the old modules are hack-fests.
More importantly, although D&D is party-based, you only play one character. So when you single out non-party CRPGs as not being authentic to their PnP roots, I can't agree. I love party-based - but it distances you from playing a role rather than enhances it.
What was the distinction you made between games like M&M and the IE games? I don't understand why one's "more" RPG than another from your criteria. Too much gold/loot is a balance issue - and you acknowledge the IE games are full of ph4t l3wt.
Realism could really do with it's own topic. I might think about that.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Sat Nov 08, 2003 8:41 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Could someone answer this please
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
If I was going to shoot someone with a longbow in a PnP game, and instead of rolling the dice and having all my attributes and magic weapons affect the chance roll to hit, I was supposed to shoot a target with a wrist rocket. And hitting the target with a wrist rocket is the sole determanent if I hit the someone I was aiming at in the PnP game. I started out with a rubber band, then moved up to a sling-shot, then a wrist rocket to show my stats are improving and I have a magic weapon.
Is that an RPG?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Nov 09, 2003 12:16 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Well, I still don't like disqualifying a game on one criteria only but...
Nope. Not for my money.
But the important thing (for me) is the wrist rocket (nice idea ) is the sole determinant in this scenario.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Sun Nov 09, 2003 1:09 am |
|
|
Kabduhl
City Guard
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 127
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
quote:
Originally posted by Korplem
I would have to disagree with you here, Roqua. It seems to me that you are trying to confine the limits of an rpg. There are really no limits to an rpg except the limitations that you yourself set. In Gothic just because i say when to swing the sword doesnt mean that my characters attributes have no say in what happens.
I could go on for a long time trying to convince you that combat is not the biggest factor in what make an rpg a true rpg but i know that in the end you will keep your bias and i will keep mine... So ill just save us the boring argument and stop here.
I don't think it's just combat, when a quest or riddle comes up and my characters (not my own) abilities dictate if it is solved, that is an RPG. Like in Fallout 2 with the Radscorp, vs. anything in Kings Quest.
I'm saying because of the combat, and only the combat, Gothic isn't a true RPG. It is an action game with RPG elements. If it being twitch based makes it more exciting and fun to play, thats fine, it just disqualifies it from being an RPG.
I like Gothic more than a lot of RPG's--all the ones with dumbed down RT combat like DS and Diablo. I think it is a better RPG than those games, but I know it isn't an RPG. Same with Dues Ex.
(p.s. is it an RPG, or a RPG? A RPG seems right but sounds wrong)
Well frankly your opinion disqualifies you from being worth paying any attention at all to. You like to start flame war arguments. Yay for you! The vast majority of the gaming world accepts Gothic as an RPG, you don't. |
|
Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:09 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
