35 réponses à ce sujet

[BluesMan1956]

What are the characteristics of a Role Playing Game, specifically, a computer/console RPG?

On other forums on this site, some have the opinion that Mass Effect is NOT an RPG.  Since, in Mass Effect, the decisions your character makes affects not only the outcome but the side quests you have available, it seems to me the epitomy of an RPG.  If it isn't, why not?  What characteristics is it missng?

[Dahn-Var Starcloak]

BluesMan1956 wrote...

What are the characteristics of a Role Playing Game, specifically, a computer/console RPG?

Oh no...  There's many definitions out there but traditionally I think it was just about the number crunching- stats and all that.

On other forums on this site, some have the opinion that Mass Effect is NOT an RPG.  Since, in Mass Effect, the decisions your character makes affects not only the outcome but the side quests you have available, it seems to me the epitomy of an RPG.  If it isn't, why not?  What characteristics is it missng?

Never played it so I cannot comment on what's it missing.

[Jonp382]

A number of players don't consider it an RPG for two major reasons as far as I am aware of.



One, the game is action based which requires some skill. In a pure RPG, it doesn't make sense to require skill on the players part, as you are role-playing.(Only the character's skill need matter, like in Baldur's Gate or Knights of the Old Republic, save the space battles) You only need tell your character what to do.



Two, the wheel hides actions and spoken dialog from the player. This doesn't make sense for role-playing, as you are supposed to tell your character what to do or say.



I think the wheel can be tossed for a list of what Shepard will say word for word instead.(If you don't mind hearing what you just read) Like BioWare's previous games and DA:O. Nothing against action though myself.

[Irx]

Jonp382 wrote...

One, the game is action based which requires some skill. In a pure RPG, it doesn't make sense to require skill on the players part, as you are role-playing.(Only the character's skill need matter, like in Baldur's Gate or Knights of the Old Republic, save the space battles) You only need tell your character what to do.

Correct, though I think they are wrong. Games like BG and KOTOR do not require any fps skills/reflexes on the player side, yes, but they simply replace action-based combat by a tactical one, which still depends on player skills, only this time on the intellectual ones, like tactical thinking, stratagy etc. I suppose intellect is simply more respected among rpg geeks than fps skills.

The pure player independent combat would be completely automated, which is boring.

[BluesMan1956]

Jonp382 wrote...

A number of players don't consider it an RPG for two major reasons as far as I am aware of.

One, the game is action based which requires some skill. In a pure RPG, it doesn't make sense to require skill on the players part, as you are role-playing.(Only the character's skill need matter, like in Baldur's Gate or Knights of the Old Republic, save the space battles) You only need tell your character what to do.

This brings up a problem I have with many objections to a particular game.  "Well it's not like THIS game, so it's no good" or that it doesn'f fit the genre.  Can't games be evaluated on their own merits rather than bringing some arbitrary standard into the evaluation?

Two, the wheel hides actions and spoken dialog from the player. This doesn't make sense for role-playing, as you are supposed to tell your character what to do or say.

I think the wheel can be tossed for a list of what Shepard will say word for word instead.(If you don't mind hearing what you just read) Like BioWare's previous games and DA:O. Nothing against action though myself.

Now I do not understand this objection.  It may be different that Jade Empire and Kotor, but I think that the wheel is more of an attitude selection rather than a dialog selection.

[LdyShayna]

BluesMan1956 wrote...
Now I do not understand this objection.  It may be different that Jade Empire and Kotor, but I think that the wheel is more of an attitude selection rather than a dialog selection.

That is exactly the source of the objection. 

[the_one_54321]

i believe that games are defined based upon their mechanics.



the fact of the matter is that absolutely any kind of game can have truly excellent story progression and character development. just look at The Legend of Zelda series or the Prince of Persia series. those are definitively not RPGs, and yet their stories and developments are world class.



take into account also that an RPG is not required to have any strong degree of customization or freedom, and you loose yet another common assumption - in the west - about what constitutes an RPG. it is still an RPG if you cannot decide anything more about your character than his/her gear. JRPGs prove this to us. not normally what we consider traditional here in the west, yet still complete with RPG stories, gameplay, and very much beloved by millions. Final Fantasy may be the single most popular series of RPGs in existence.



so what are we left with? gameplay. it's the mechanics of the game that make it an RPG. that is Role Playing Game. for it to be an RPG you the player have to completely assume the role of the character. and that means the mechanics of the game is going to replace your skills and abilities with the characters skills and abilities, in some direct way. therefore, when a game requires you to be directly influential to the outcome of some event, the game has lost some degree of it's qualification as an RPG. when a game has your direct input as crucial to the outcome of most events, it is not an RPG at all.

[BluesMan1956]

LdyShayna wrote...

BluesMan1956 wrote...
Now I do not understand this objection.  It may be different that Jade Empire and Kotor, but I think that the wheel is more of an attitude selection rather than a dialog selection.

That is exactly the source of the objection. 

But does that objection mean it is NOT an RPG?   Where is the ANSI standard that says "spoken dialog must match text on the screen"?   The purist standpoint would then have GREAT objection to the "alien " languages spoken in KOTOR and not matching up with the text on the screen.  If you listen closely, you will find the aliens say the exact same syllables but are "translated" entirely differently.

I can understand a personal preference of dialog wheel -vs- attitude wheel.  What I strongly disagree with is "I don't like this feature, therefore it's not an RPG".  Who assigned one who makes that claim the arbitrer of what is and isn't an RPG?

[jrastaban]

It is clear we need to elect an RPG symposium to oversee the RPG standards and practices .



Joking aside, this is obviously subjective and RPG can mean something different to each person. A game can fall under many different headings, what the label really means is which role is most dominate.



In Mass Effect this actually was in the hands of the player, you could play it like an action/shooter game or like myself you could pause every other second and assign which power you would use on the targets.



How you played the game greatly colors your perception, to me it was a decidedly RPG game. I could see how someone running and gunning would not believe it to be an RPG, and in there experience it probably wasn't.

[BluesMan1956]

the_one_54321 wrote...

i believe that games are defined based upon their mechanics.
so what are we left with? gameplay. it's the mechanics of the game that make it an RPG. that is Role Playing Game. for it to be an RPG you the player have to completely assume the role of the character. and that means the mechanics of the game is going to replace your skills and abilities with the characters skills and abilities, in some direct way. therefore, when a game requires you to be directly influential to the outcome of some event, the game has lost some degree of it's qualification as an RPG. when a game has your direct input as crucial to the outcome of most events, it is not an RPG at all.

I disagree with this interpretation - It's a role playing game because your are forced into the pre-conceived role rather than it is a a role playing game because it allows you to choose what role to play and that the decisions you make have real consequences?  

When I first was introducted to D&D in 1974, I loved the idea of taking on a new identify and immersing myself in a new world.  I was not handed a character and told "Here, play this person.  This is what he will do, this is what he won't do".  I was able to develop my character and make decisions that had real in-game consequences.

I do not understand the interpretation of "role playing" in which the player really has no choices to make.

[Guy4142]

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters.[1] Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization,[1] and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[2] Within the rules, players have the freedom to improvise; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the game.

[Guy4142]

A genre of video game is also referred to as role-playing games. These games do not involve "role-playing" in the sense used in role-playing games;[1][4] they take their name from the settings and game mechanics which they inherit from early role-playing games.[5] Due to the popularity of video games, the terms "role-playing game" and "RPG" have both to some degree been co-opted by the video gaming industry; as a result, games in which players play the roles of characters are sometimes referred to by the retronyms "pen and paper role-playing games" or "tabletop role-playing games,"[2] though neither pen and paper nor a table are strictly necessary.[2]

[BluesMan1956]

Guy4142 wrote...

A genre of video game is also referred to as role-playing games. These games do not involve "role-playing" in the sense used in role-playing games;[1][4] they take their name from the settings and game mechanics which they inherit from early role-playing games.[5] Due to the popularity of video games, the terms "role-playing game" and "RPG" have both to some degree been co-opted by the video gaming industry; as a result, games in which players play the roles of characters are sometimes referred to by the retronyms "pen and paper role-playing games" or "tabletop role-playing games,"[2] though neither pen and paper nor a table are strictly necessary.[2]

Do you have links to those footnote references?

[the_one_54321]

obviously, i agree with Guy4142

[Kilsot]

Is it bad that in my eyes that video game RPGs all have some sort of stat/skill/talent point you spend to increase your characters abilities? From my logic ME fits into the RPG genre. It gives me classes to choose, points to assign, and choices to make.

From a PnP point of view, very few, if any, video game RPGs are actually RPGs. It is nearly impossible to act out a character that is not part of a predefined set of choices. What makes PnP RPGs what they are is that they give complete freedom for the player to act however they want.

@BluesMan, I do not think comparing a truly free form RPG system (any PnP game) to one that cannot be free form due to technological limitations is fair. Granted that NWN is able to work around this to a degree, it is still limited in the scope of what it can do.

P.S. ... would that make the Sims an RPG? It does give you the choice to do what given to you as choices. The player does assume the role/roles of multiple people... Gah now I am confused.

Modifié par Kilsot, 30 octobre 2009 - 10:45 .

[M_arc]

Imo there has to be a level system of any kind.

You have to be able to improve yourself.

[stevej713]

I have a very broad view of RPGs. If you create a character and are able to make choices, then it is an RPG. Yes, I know people will argue with that statement, but it is just my opinion.

[Cadaveth]

Every game is and RPG since you can role play in every game ever made. Even Tetris.

[Beechwell]

I basicaly agree with guy4142's quote. There are two ways to define computer role playing games.

First as games where you control a single character that is governed by a number of stats (which also includes "action"-rpgs like ME or M&B - even gothic requires some buttom-smashing skill). Second as the definition used for PnP role playing games: A game where you act as a character and are completely in charge of his/her decisions/personality.

The second definition is certainly more true to the word "role-play", but hard to translate to a computer game. No computer game allowys you complete control of your character. You can only move along predetermined paths in the story and character decisions. And people like to disagree a lot about what qualifies as role-playing a computer character and what doesn't. So I think the second definition is problematic at least, still I would call a RPG one that satisfies either one of those definitions.



I'd like to note that even PnP RPGs developed from tabletop wargames with single characters instead of whole armies. So in a way even for PnP games my first definition stands at the very beginning of role-play.

[RefipBelak]

A roleplaying game is a game where 1) You create a charater who gets better over time and 2) who has a profound impact on the story.

[kraidy1117]

the_one_54321 wrote...

i believe that games are defined based upon their mechanics.

the fact of the matter is that absolutely any kind of game can have truly excellent story progression and character development. just look at The Legend of Zelda series or the Prince of Persia series. those are definitively not RPGs, and yet their stories and developments are world class.

take into account also that an RPG is not required to have any strong degree of customization or freedom, and you loose yet another common assumption - in the west - about what constitutes an RPG. it is still an RPG if you cannot decide anything more about your character than his/her gear. JRPGs prove this to us. not normally what we consider traditional here in the west, yet still complete with RPG stories, gameplay, and very much beloved by millions. Final Fantasy may be the single most popular series of RPGs in existence.

so what are we left with? gameplay. it's the mechanics of the game that make it an RPG. that is Role Playing Game. for it to be an RPG you the player have to completely assume the role of the character. and that means the mechanics of the game is going to replace your skills and abilities with the characters skills and abilities, in some direct way. therefore, when a game requires you to be directly influential to the outcome of some event, the game has lost some degree of it's qualification as an RPG. when a game has your direct input as crucial to the outcome of most events, it is not an RPG at all.

Actualy The Zelda series is considered an action-adventure Role-playing game because of it's heavy focus on side quest and exploring places to get better equipment. It's not a pure RPG but it is still considred one because of it's heavy focus on things.

[Adamski_707]

To me the main part of an RPG is the story and character development both (PC and NPC) thats what i view as the heart but of course there are other things that make an RPG but i think those are the main aspects.

[GhoXen]

RPG: Role-playing games. It has many sub-genres.

Traditional RPG(western): RPG games originated from pen&paper RPGs namely DnD. The most significant feature is actually the combat system: point and click in a strategic form, and often with control of more than one character.

Traditional RPG(eastern): More commonly known as JRPG. These RPGs' most significant feature is turn-based combat in specific combat instances.

Action RPG: RPGs with elements of action games, namely third-person action games. The most significant feature is "slash per click", where often auto-attack is not available. The ability to jump is also another notable feature. Short answer = its combat system is not Traditional RPG's.

Shooter RPG: Usually it means RPGs with elements of a first-person shooter. Well, the notable feature is obviously first-person camera view. However, in recent years third-person ARPG with guns and shooting also become vaguely included in this genre.

Stragetic RPG: Nobody makes them anymore. This genre died.

Primary Reason of Conflict: The word "RPG" used to describe solely the Traditional RPG(western) genre. Over the years the meaning of that word has changed into the generalized term for all the sub-genres listed above. The older gamers may still cling to RPG's original meaning, while the newer gamers have a broader point of view on what RPG represents.

A game cannot be called a "pure-RPG". "Pure-RPG" that no longer exists, for nearly all RPGs have elements of other genres nowadays, including Dragon Age: Origins, and RPG itself is no longer "pure", if some would actually call it that.

Modifié par GhoXen, 01 novembre 2009 - 05:46 .

[Orogun01]

GhoXen wrote...

RPG: Role-playing games. It has many sub-genres.

Traditional RPG(western): RPG games originated from pen&paper RPGs namely DnD. The most significant feature is actually the combat system: point and click in a strategic form, and often with control of more than one character.

Traditional RPG(eastern): More commonly known as JRPG. These RPGs' most significant feature is turn-based combat in specific combat instances.

Action RPG: RPGs with elements of action games, namely third-person action games. The most significant feature is "slash per click", where often auto-attack is not available. The ability to jump is also another notable feature. Short answer = its combat system is not Traditional RPG's.

Shooter RPG: Usually it means RPGs with elements of a first-person shooter. Well, the notable feature is obviously first-person camera view. However, in recent years third-person ARPG with guns and shooting also become vaguely included in this genre.

Stragetic RPG: Nobody makes them anymore. This genre died.

Primary Reason of Conflict: The word "RPG" used to describe solely the Traditional RPG(western) genre. Over the years the meaning of that word has changed into the generalized term for all the sub-genres listed above. The older gamers may still cling to RPG's original meaning, while the newer gamers have a broader point of view on what RPG represents.

A game cannot be called a "pure-RPG". "Pure-RPG" that no longer exists, for nearly all RPGs have elements of other genres nowadays, including Dragon Age: Origins, and RPG itself is no longer "pure", if some would actually call it that.

That's a good breakdown of the whole. But I still doubt the existence of a Pure- RPG in a literal sense since the first exponents of the genre where closer to CRPGs. Much of this modern view of the genre as not pure comes; in my opinion, from the popularization of the genre as a more tactical game during the 90's, rather than the actual definition. But when you think about it many other genres have adopted features from the RPG genre, (I.E: customization, it used to be exclusive to RPGs) To be fair, treating this subject would require a deconstruction of every RPG sub-genre and what it makes it an RPG.
BTW: SRPGs are still made in Japan, unfortunately (or fortunately if  you like it) they are H-games mostly.

[Sarevok Anchev]

If people differ to the indirect control( giving orders) as an RPG quality, then you can just call

them character based strategy game.



Controls has nothing to do with Role playing. Take Deus Ex or Vampire 2. You choose a character

and control him (directly). In certain circumstances you choose and decide effects in the storyline (minor or major).