62 réponses à ce sujet

[Rubbish Hero]

Do they become adventure games?

[Loerwyn]

No, they do not.

[DarthCaine]

Erm, yes I guess. I played adventure games long before playing my first RPG

[Rubbish Hero]

who is rpg?

[Loerwyn]

Explanation: Why don't they? Simple - Combat is an integral part of RPGs, even those that allow a pacifist path.

Removing combat from an RPG is like removing shooting and guns from an FPS. Mirror's Edge is the closest representation we have to that, so let's analyse that. It's possible to get through most of the game without using guns or killing anyone, and what you're left with is more along the lines of a platformer/racing game with minor combat elements.

If you take the combat from an RPG, what are you left with? A lot of running around and talking to people. That's it. Adventure games are made from puzzles, different locations, (often) lateral thinking and so forth, creating a fairly linear (most of the time) narrative more akin to a book with little/no action. An adventure game isn't an RPG without combat. It's a different type of game in its own right.

[joriandrake]

jonv1234 wrote...

An RPG without combat is missing an important element of the story, one that helps to drive the plot along, as well as keeping the game immersive.

I wouldn't say Broken Sword / Gabriel Knight / Shadow of Memories misses an "important element" of the story because they lack combat, and yes I do think that if you remove combat from RPG you become very close to what adventure games are about

In my opinion, since pnp RPG moved to computers the term "RPG" what was true for pnp was torn into two seperate genres on PC called "RPG" and "Adventure". I am sure that without combat real RPG could still be done if the character can evolve over the game and has some skills and statistics, as example in a detective story or school setting RPG noone would really miss combat.

[Rubbish Hero]

Why must almost every video game revolve around the act of killing or violence?

If I posted a nice looking pair of ****** om a foru I would probably be banned on the spot with lots of rage.. If I posted this..









Nobody bats an eyelid.

The way things work is very stupid I think. Boobs are designed to be nice. Killing bad.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Fake boobs bad



Fake killing awesome



Real boobs good



Real killing bad

[Rubbish Hero]

Video games are probably used to condition people for the next war.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 25 septembre 2010 - 10:19 .

[AshedMan]

I would argue that removing combat would not turn an RPG into an adventure game. Removing combat and the ability to level/experience and/or make changes to my character (str, dex, int, perks, spells, abilities, etc.) would then turn it into an adventure game.

[AshedMan]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Video games are probably used to condition people for the next war.

Soldiers are being trained on simulators (games) right now.  

[MaaZeus]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Why must almost every video game revolve around the act of killing or violence?
If I posted a nice looking pair of ****** om a foru I would probably be banned on the spot with lots of rage.. If I posted this..




Nobody bats an eyelid.
The way things work is very stupid I think. Boobs are designed to be nice. Killing bad.

Combat is there to stimulate our primal wannabebadass inside of us I guess. Usually though, if given a chance, I try to avoid combat and use persuasion or whatever. But those are sort of rewards. My characters usually live in a vile world and because of that constantly have to sink low and need to resort combat and killing, but if I manage to resolve a situation without unnecessary loss of lives, it feels great.


So to me combat is very important part of RPG game, but so is the possibility of avoiding it. Both are there to make me involved in the actions of my character.


And about boobs vs violence, you are now talking about rather american thing that doesnt really apply to europe on same extent.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 25 septembre 2010 - 10:32 .

[MaaZeus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Fake boobs bad

Fake killing awesome

Real boobs good

Real killing bad

Hah! Great post.

[MaaZeus]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Video games are probably used to condition people for the next war.

I would look at FPS instead if thats what you think. Usually they consist of shooting things with no emotional impact or reason to care, OR ability to decide not to shoot.

[joriandrake]

MaaZeus wrote...

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Video games are probably used to condition people for the next war.

I would look at FPS instead if thats what you think. Usually they consist of shooting things with no emotional impact or reason to care, OR ability to decide not to shoot.

actually I know that in some places soldiers also play Fallout and Jagged Alliance and not just FPS

[dunniteowl]

Playing it for fun is one thing, playing it as part of your training is another. And some games that are FPS intensive are being used for Marine and Army training. Emphasis on "training." It doesn't take the place of actual combat exercises, it augments them.

I don't think if you take out combat, that it becomes an adventure game. I think if you really take out danger, then it becomes more an adventure game. I couldn't get into Myst. There was no ACTION. On the other hand, I played Pitfall Harry till my thumbs hurt. Which was more involved?

Myst.

Which was more fun and had more action? Pitfall Harry.

Combat doesn't have to happen, but it has to be possible. And by combat I don't necessarily mean swords swinging, guns shooting, ninja kicks in wuxia glory. Conflict of some sort. And it doesn't have to be CvC (Character vs Character -- because not all combat between beings is going to be PvP (Player vs Player)) as long as there is a clear cut choice to encounter something and have to best it with (meta)physical force if chosen.

And there are plenty of Adventure Games where combat is integral and they are not RPGs. Splinter Cell comes to mind. Assassin's Creed, Thief. Are they completely devoid of combat? I don't consider them RPGs. I consider them action adventure games. My character's choices are not morally life changing or character growth oriented. My characters 'growth' is not necessarily skills and stats related, nor do they affect the overall outcome of the game, much less the scenario I happen to be playing. So I don't consider them RPGs, but they still have combat of one sort or another.

So combat is not the contextual determinant of whether or not it's an RPG. Otherwise, we'd have to all swallow the bitter pill and proclaim Command and Conquer qualifies as an RPG because it has combat and it's not an Action or Adventure Game.

... and

I'm probably way overthinking this...

dno

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Do they become adventure games?

likely, but there is still much more conversations in RPG than a simple adventure game. Indeed the result will be similar to adventure style , but an adventure game has more try & use options than a RPG which has many fighting aspects.

[HoonDing]

Adventure games require a constant barrage of puzzles to solve to progress a storyline. RPGs don't have the same frequency of puzzles, except for the occasional Towers of Hanoi. Take away combat from RPGs and there wouldn't be much game left.



There are of course, exceptions, like Planescape: Torment (which would frankly be better without combat) and Fallout (which can be completed in non-violent ways).

[Loerwyn]

virumor wrote...
Towers of Hanoi.

You just had to swear, didn't you? 

[Sago_mulch]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Explanation: Why don't they? Simple - Combat is an integral part of RPGs, even those that allow a pacifist path.

combat cannot be that integral to the rpg genre if they allow you to be a pacifist, wait wat?