1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Red Son Rising]

darth_lopez wrote...
I would just like to proopose refining this a bit to make the point a wee bit better, ( i really hope that is mostly sarcasm on your part Pheadon)
refined tree



Just proposing
For bigger picture This

Can we all agree to this general setup?

Noticed a mistake fixed

[scroll scroll scroll scroll] pretty pictures [scroll scroll scroll] image has some potential but the plebs will still argue that anything outside their narrow definition doesnt qualify as an rpg. not that it matters, im starting to lump that crowd in with ppl that believe USA faked the moon landing and 9/11 conspiracy nuts

[Arcadian Legend]

Honestly, I don't give a damn whether the series are RPGs or not. They are all awesome/going to be awesome. Surely that's all that matters?

[cindercatz]

I just wanted to compliment the OP's videos. I'm not personally entirely agreed, but they were entertaining. *exits stage left*

[darth_lopez]

Red Son Rising wrote...

darth_lopez wrote...
I would just like to proopose refining this a bit to make the point a wee bit better, ( i really hope that is mostly sarcasm on your part Pheadon)
refined tree



Just proposing
For bigger picture This

Can we all agree to this general setup?

Noticed a mistake fixed

[scroll scroll scroll scroll] pretty pictures [scroll scroll scroll] image has some potential but the plebs will still argue that anything outside their narrow definition doesnt qualify as an rpg. not that it matters, im starting to lump that crowd in with ppl that believe USA faked the moon landing and 9/11 conspiracy nuts

Thank you sir, i was hoping i would get some folks to respond like this  at least ^^ thank you, Also Who are Plebs? (are they the folks like Gatt from the super Hardcore RPG forums?) In anycase yeah, anyone who would nothing is an RPG unless it does something like DnD exactly (as i take most of what gatt says to mean) is quite narrow and Definately miss out on the fact that RPGs like DnD are an entirely different mechanism from RPGs like Kotor and ME.

[Phaedon]

darth_lopez wrote...
SO yeah, my last post to squee was filled with anger and rage, and probably unintelligible in a few areas. I'll just give you a quick summary of what i was going for in my posts in general, though i'm sure you've noticed by now you are a smart fellow pheadon.

Well, a summary always helps. I wanted to call you out on some specifics mistakes you made, but anyway.

in anycase my big argument is that the Mechanics are what, on the computer/for video games, Seperate RPG from different Video Games Taking away mechanics (in the VGRPGs case large item index,

Let's refer to them as CRPGs for now, even if they are designed to be played with consoles. We don't really need that many acronyms flying around.

and player progression and choice of skills) Is making it the same as most other games. Though i wouldn't argue that a game is an RPG simply because they have these things, or isn't one because it lacks them, But That these are important genre conventions for video game RPGs that help to define them as an RPG and taking them away could, not necessarily will, result in a less than satisfactory RPG or a washed down one.

"Washed down" doesn't say much for hybrid games. I'd argue that hybrid RPGs are among the most enjoyable ones for me, considering that they provide a new way to direct action between the character and the player. Enjoyability definitely doesn't have much to do with genre, how close to genre standards the mechanics of a game are, etc. The same goes for complexity. 

Anyway, the problem with your definition is that, if you consider statistical progression in "J"RPGs enough to consider them as RPGs, well...you'll have to look at Rainbow Six, Call of Duty and Battlefield and try to find what blocks roleplaying to them.

Maybe because shooters rarely assign you to an actual person with actual personality?

Considering that most of the statistical progression in these games lies in Multiplayer, that is somewhat valid, I s'pose.

My complaint with squee is that the Generalization of RPG as simply a game where you Role Play Is far too broad and is contradicted by the additional stipuluation of being able to control the PC's Personality developement and Story progression 100% of the time. Role Play is not, only, Player Projection but assuming a Role and Playing as it in DnD and other TTRPGs (PnPRPGs whatever) Role playing is equivelent to impromptue acting that can't be accurately simulated on a Computer system or in a game other than Table Tops. Thus all video game RPGs present you limited choices but allow for the illusion of freedom so that they can cover a finite set of options for story and character progression. Meaning that just like FF, ME has already defined what shepard can and cannot be Any idea that the player can freely choose what shepard is, is nothing more than an intended illusion to simulate TTRPGs to some degree. Fall Out is slightly more free than ME  but it ultimately all comes down to the character has already been defined for you by the developer you are simply allowed to follow down 1 of any combination of 3 typical roads(Nuetral, Evil(renegade), Good (paragon).

There is a big difference between no choice and few choices.

There are hundrends of mini-choices in the Mass Effect games. With how many possible combinations? Well, you could actually calculate that, but let's not go there. Anyway, the actual outcomes are near infinite, even with the many, but finite combinations.

That is because, you create an image of Shepard in your head. And you use combinations of choices to shape his or her character as better as possible, in-game. A Shepard that has picked every single paragon choice possible, is very different than a Shepard who picked every single paragon choice possible, except for not throwing the merc down the tower.

Why? Well, what caused the difference?
Why did Shepard feel the need to throw the poor merc down the tower? Is s/he impatient? Does Shepard have history with mercs? Was that the side-effect of PTSD? I know I can create some backstory, even from that single choice.

therefore by Squees arguments, that an RPG is simply Role Playing all games qualify for RPG status as all require a degree of literal role play, and by the stipulation that they must present you freedom of choice to develope the character how you want (the story and character's personality in particular)  Not only contradicts the original claim, but also makes no video game an RPG.

Most games block any varied interaction between the player and the character, whether that is statistical or of roleplaying nature.

The game mechanics, and their similarity to those of earlier RPGs, is what ultimately Determines RPG when coupled to some degree of finite RP.

Except that your definition has to be ever-evolving, even by very little. 

Think about it. The first automobile ever is created, and you say that anything that has very similar functions is an automobile. But you go ahead and remove features, and add more, or modify others beyond recognition. In the end of the day, the cars of the 2000s end up not being automobiles.

But if you account for every slight evolution and evolve your definition accordingly, you will be good to go, mostly.

Either way, there is no serious argument to suggest that ME1/2/3 are not RPGs. Their core is filled with RPG features, and one could go ahead and state that their core is that of an RP game.

I would just like to proopose refining this a bit to make the point a wee bit better, ( i really hope that is mostly sarcasm on your part Pheadon)
refined tree



Just proposing
For bigger picture This

Can we all agree to this general setup?

Noticed a mistake fixed

It is obviously sarcasm for my part. I am replying to a Gatt9 post, and after all, I have a Sherlock Vakarian avatar. I tend to be sarcastic towards Watson, he is a good fellow, but not the best in deduction. /joke

As for the chart, the basic set-up? Yes, I suppose I agree with it.

My main objections are three:

1) If you made this, you are not focusing enough on the acting section. This should have branched more, imo, your point would be even more valid.

2) WCRPG vs JCRPG are flawed terms considering that

a)they describe the origin more than the gameplay of a game,

b)there are a LOT of exceptions to the rule, so anyway, any words that could be associated to development origin need to get out of there,

c)it bases itself on pre-existing games. Oh look, if it plays like FF it is a JRPG. Anyway, replace WCRPG and JCRPG with PPCRPG and CCRPG (as in, go directly for what the descriptions say) and we can agree. That's one of the things I actually disagree with Squee. Besides, if you are going to consider Diablo as an RPG, then it needs to be called a CCRPG/JCRPG. I am very sceptical about the amount of freedom allowed in C/JCRPGs, but for now, I'll accept certain gameplay choices as part of acting a pre-determined role with a certain amount of variety.

I don't agree that statistical progression is needed, as your figure shows. At all. My character doesn't need to progress statistically, SHOULD I have control over the personality of the character. Besides, statistical control over the character does not equal statistical progression.

Statistical progression is generally not very well fitting in certain kinds of stories anyway.

I can understand the requirement for statistical progressionin CCRPGs, but not PPCRPGs.

But either way, overall, I approve of your chart (it is yours, right?) as it accepts RPGs as a wide category and denounces elitism.

[Il Divo]

Phaedon wrote...

Besides, statistical control over the character does not equal statistical progression.

I always thought this was an interesting point in the "What is an RPG?" debate. If we have statistically based combat, but no inventory and the PC never levels up/gets stronger, do we still consider it an RPG?

[Phaedon]

In PPCRPGs (see above)? Statistical progression isn't really necessary, I don't see why. In CCRPGs? Yeah. It's the only level of control over your character. You must have it, or the "I am acting as Sora/Tidus/etc" statement is wrong.

Environments that are usually accepted as inventories or item selection are not necessary at all. They are just a gameplay mechanic favoured by game design in general.

[darth_lopez]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Well, a summary always helps. I wanted to call you out on some specifics mistakes you made, but anyway.

[/quote]

indeed it is ^^
[quote]

Let's refer to them as CRPGs for now, even if they are designed to be played with consoles. We don't really need that many acronyms flying around.
[/quote]

I simply prefer to specify a bit more as CRPGs(computer RPGs) is a node, or hub, for the 2 main types.
[quote]
[quote]and player progression and choice of skills) Is making it the same as most other games. Though i wouldn't argue that a game is an RPG simply because they have these things, or isn't one because it lacks them, But That these are important genre conventions for video game RPGs that help to define them as an RPG and taking them away could, not necessarily will, result in a less than satisfactory RPG or a washed down one. [/quote]
"Washed down" doesn't say much for hybrid games. I'd argue that hybrid RPGs are among the most enjoyable ones for me, considering that they provide a new way to direct action between the character and the player. Enjoyability definitely doesn't have much to do with genre, how close to genre standards the mechanics of a game are, etc. The same goes for complexity. 

Anyway, the problem with your definition is that, if you consider statistical progression in "J"RPGs enough to consider them as RPGs, well...you'll have to look at Rainbow Six, Call of Duty and Battlefield and try to find what blocks roleplaying to them.

Maybe because shooters rarely assign you to an actual person with actual personality?

Considering that most of the statistical progression in these games lies in Multiplayer, that is somewhat valid, I s'pose.
[/quote]

I will give you the hybrids are frequently the better games in my honest opinion, when i say washed down or watered down though, i know it carries a negative connotation with it but i mean it in the most literal sense the the RPG is simply a little less than an RPG and that's not necessarily a bad thing from the objective standpoint or a subjective one when it comes to enjoyability, i for one am not saying that ME 2 is not an RPG because it was watered down a bit, Just that it was less identifiable to many people as one because of this.

It occurs to me i might not have specified players need to be able to control where their stats alot, which is one of my gameplay stipulations for an RPG (the day i wrote this i was dreadfully sick and on benadryl which does terrible things to me v.v) The PLayer Must be able to control their Characters Progression by aloting points of some variety in some form to something that is essentially functioning as a skill of the character. Most of the games you site with character progression do not allow for this, COD 4+ i know for certain doesnt BFBC 2 doesn't allow you to control progression in the manner i was trying to communicate, nor does Rainbow 6(i believe Vegas+ are the ones you refer to there?) Or most standard FPSs, an FPS that does would be Deus Ex:HR probably the original Deus Ex and possibly (though i'm not certain) even the first sequel(don't shoot me i've never played the sequel or the original i'm going on a limb here) Out of those three games the one that strayed furthest from RPG in fans' eyes was the original sequel which i've heard called a generic shooter far more than once, in any case Deus Ex: HR follows my proposed Progression mechanic (or rather the one i intended to propose) and is considered an RPG by most everyone who has played it i would assume (as it's steam category is action RPG xD)

My knowledge of JRPGs falls drastically short, aside from defending the fact they are RPGs even if they aren't good ones in my opinion, The last JRPG that i've played allowed for skill selection and such rather than just linear level progression with static bonuses(ala standard FPS) However i'll come back to this note later on because i believe you touch on Gameplay mechanics again further down this post and it would be prudent to bring it up there to further solidify my claim that we must, to some degree, keep gameplay mechanics in mind when conversing about CRPGs as the game mechanics are truly what set the genre aside from the others.

[quote]

There is a big difference between no choice and few choices.

There are hundrends of mini-choices in the Mass Effect games. With how many possible combinations? Well, you could actually calculate that, but let's not go there. Anyway, the actual outcomes are near infinite, even with the many, but finite combinations.

That is because, you create an image of Shepard in your head. And you use combinations of choices to shape his or her character as better as possible, in-game. A Shepard that has picked every single paragon choice possible, is very different than a Shepard who picked every single paragon choice possible, except for not throwing the merc down the tower.

Why? Well, what caused the difference?
Why did Shepard feel the need to throw the poor merc down the tower? Is s/he impatient? Does Shepard have history with mercs? Was that the side-effect of PTSD? I know I can create some backstory, even from that single choice.
[/quote]

the main point on my statements regarding finite choices was to show that even in Mass Effect, critically acclaimed for it's 'dynamic' story, i use it lightly as it isn't truly dynamic and is more akin to a choose your path story book as most WCRPGs (Or PPCRPGs as you suggest (i liked your acronym revisions as you can tell)) are, i digress.

The main point was that the coices are infact finite unlike a table top or the traditional RPG that was concieved and pretty much finalized with DnD, I was attempting to highlight that RP-ing is a State of Mind, not a gameplay mechanic that helps define the genre, but a state of mind that can be achieved simply by willing it with or without the games enabling of the situation. In PPCRPGs the games limited choices function less as unlimited RolePlay and more as Limited Enabling of RolePlay. And, as the PP sugests, Allows players to project their own beliefs, personality, culture, etc... along with fictional ones that may interest them into the character, story and game.

While i will cede to you that breaking the 4th wall and enabling the players to project themsevles through choices can be seen as a general trait of PPCRPGs(or WCRPGs) i would not go so far as to say it is a requirement, and the only requirement, as squee has in his videos for an RPG to be an RPG. It is simply a feature in 1, still very new class of RPG (though certaintly a good and promising one.)

[quote]
[quote]therefore by Squees arguments, that an RPG is simply Role Playing all games qualify for RPG status as all require a degree of literal role play, and by the stipulation that they must present you freedom of choice to develope the character how you want (the story and character's personality in particular)  Not only contradicts the original claim, but also makes no video game an RPG. [/quote]
Most games block any varied interaction between the player and the character, whether that is statistical or of roleplaying nature.
[/quote]

true enough, But the blocking of statistical control occurs far less in games considered to be RPG. Diablo, or Titan Quest as an example. 'silent' characters but the players ability to control progression was still enabled, along with massive item indexes and an inventory system. This allows those games, and similar games, to be considered CRPG rather then Offshoot 3 of Non-Rpg VG in my tree.

[quote]
[quote]The game mechanics, and their similarity to those of earlier RPGs, is what ultimately Determines RPG when coupled to some degree of finite RP.[/quote]
Except that your definition has to be ever-evolving, even by very little. 

Think about it. The first automobile ever is created, and you say that anything that has very similar functions is an automobile. But you go ahead and remove features, and add more, or modify others beyond recognition. In the end of the day, the cars of the 2000s end up not being automobiles.

But if you account for every slight evolution and evolve your definition accordingly, you will be good to go, mostly.

Either way, there is no serious argument to suggest that ME1/2/3 are not RPGs. Their core is filled with RPG features, and one could go ahead and state that their core is that of an RP game.

[/quote]

Yes which is why we use the minimal criteria or seek the minimal criteria to determine a CRPG, in this case relying on mechanics of player controlled level progression and 'dynamic bonus'(i mean talents or skills that will very based on pre-existing player stats) selection, large item index (all rpgs) with an inventory system typically more complex than most FPS (and one that typically allows the accumulation of junk items though not necessarily(certaintly a debatable quality and subjective one of the RPG)) we have a minimal amount of gameplay mechanics no more complex than it seems and it infact allows for the inclusion of Mass Effects (1, 2) FO(3+ and likely all other) DA(1 2) Titan quest, diablo etc... into the category of RPG, while allowing all existing and likely to be developed in the future JRPGs AND most importantly Droping a Wooden Fence with holes in it around RPG(symbolic of borrowing characteristics from time to time i.e. RTS with RPG elements, FPS with RPG elements such and such...) to seperate it from RTS and FPS.


[quote]
[quote]






Just proposing
For bigger picture This

Can we all agree to this general setup?

[/quote]
It is obviously sarcasm for my part. I am replying to a Gatt9 post, and after all, I have a Sherlock Vakarian avatar. I tend to be sarcastic towards Watson, he is a good fellow, but not the best in deduction. /joke
[/quote]
That is good to know like i said that day i was on benedryl and well...i hate that stuff for good reason.

[quote]
As for the chart, the basic set-up? Yes, I suppose I agree with it.
[/quote]

Thankyou ^^

[quote]
My main objections are three:

1) If you made this, you are not focusing enough on the acting section. This should have branched more, imo, your point would be even more valid.
[/quote]

Feel free to modify it (this is my chart it was done in MS Paint) feel free to copy and modify as you see fit just repost so i can see teh changes, as it's something i'm very interested in. i don't know much about acting i major in linguistics not drama, which is why i drew a tree rather than a web it's familiar to me and adequetly denotes hierarchy,  So if you see something there i don't feel free to have at it. It would certaintly contribute to the convo.

[quote]
2) WCRPG vs JCRPG are flawed terms considering that

a)they describe the origin more than the gameplay of a game,

b)there are a LOT of exceptions to the rule, so anyway, any words that could be associated to development origin need to get out of there,

c)it bases itself on pre-existing games. Oh look, if it plays like FF it is a JRPG. Anyway, replace WCRPG and JCRPG with PPCRPG and CCRPG (as in, go directly for what the descriptions say) and we can agree. That's one of the things I actually disagree with Squee. Besides, if you are going to consider Diablo as an RPG, then it needs to be called a CCRPG/JCRPG. I am very sceptical about the amount of freedom allowed in C/JCRPGs, but for now, I'll accept certain gameplay choices as part of acting a pre-determined role with a certain amount of variety.

I don't agree that statistical progression is needed, as your figure
shows. At all. My character doesn't need to progress statistically,
SHOULD I have control over the personality of the character. Besides,
statistical control over the character does not equal statistical
progression.
[/quote]

agreed on A and B and your revisions in C Diablo fits into the JCRPG/CCRPG category by gameplay mechanics, the enabling of roleplay is simply more of an added trait that allows for deeper emersion expereinced in PPC(A)RPGs and certaintly does good job at adding to the game and perhaps giving it a little more of a 'semantic' difference difference than a 'syntactic' one, forgive the linguistics analogy i'm refering to mechanics as syntax (basically determining how the game genres are played much like how syntax determines how a languages is spoken)  and the player-character interface as semantics (basically how the languages is interpreted or in this case how the game feels as an RPG) It might be, and though hopefully isn't, a poor analogoy but may perhaps shed some light on a slightly more effeicient way to view the stereo typical difference between JRPG and WRPG.

Also i agree with your placement of diablo. Those 2 categories should have their Node names changed. incase that wasn't clear i got carried away in linguistics analogy.

[quote]

Statistical progression is generally not very well fitting in certain kinds of stories anyway.

I can understand the requirement for statistical progressionin CCRPGs, but not PPCRPGs.
[/quote]

I probably could refine the chart better, the light blue mechanics(i'm collor blind so the one with the M on top and sitting to the right of the bar >.> just incase my color is not light blue ) under WRPG was supposed to show a preservation of the mechanics that denoted the class as CRPG from the medium Video game node. it was nothing more than to show continued application of the rule.

As a sub category of CCRPGs the mechanics applied to CCRPGs in this chart would still apply i just needed a consistent way to identify this.  Also when we get to PPCARPGs(WARPGs) i do feel the need to re-iterate the general CRPG mechanic combines with non-rpg mechanics typically, or so that is what the grouping that was to indicate.

However on the other side of the bar the continued application of the Non-RPG mechanics is to illustrate both that non-rpg mechanics are consitently applied but also the likliehood of mechanical variation. Dealing with mechanics as part of the formula both.


[quote]
But either way, overall, I approve of your chart (it is yours, right?) as it accepts RPGs as a wide category and denounces elitism.
[/quote]
Thank you again, and yes again it is mine ( i spent 2 hours on teh first one and then another hour or so doing that one xD but i was out of class sick that day so what else was i to do xD) as i said before feel free to edit it just repost it if you feel the edits are substantial enough or would benefit the conversation (in anycase send me a link so i can look at it and we can converse more about the chart specifically via PM if we must but i think convo here would probably be fine, it's certaintly on topic.) 

But yes I designed it more or less so that heirarchy should show that RP is a part of story telling, but has a part of story telling associated with it, and is parent to most (if not all) games and Acting. Games can further be broken down etc....

The prime thing to take away from it
for squee is that RP =/= only RPG
For Gatt that Most Modern RPGs are infact RPGs.
and in general That things can probably be boiled down to that.

[darth_lopez]

i fixed this to make it easier to read >.> srry no offense meant just formatted the quote
[quote]Phaedon wrote...
[quote]Il Divo wrote...


[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Besides, statistical control over the character does not equal statistical progression.

[/quote]

I
always thought this was an interesting point in the "What is an RPG?"
debate. If we have statistically based combat, but no inventory and the
PC never levels up/gets stronger, do we still consider it an RPG?
[/quote]

In PPCRPGs (see above)? Statistical progression isn't really necessary, I don't see why. In CCRPGs? Yeah. It's the only level of control over your character. You must have it, or the "I am acting as Sora/Tidus/etc" statement is wrong.

Environments that are usually accepted as inventories or item selection are not necessary at all. They are just a gameplay mechanic favoured by game design in general.[/quote]
[/quote]

This is where i would dissagree with pheadon on the "What is an RPG?" debate.
That would not be an RPG because it lacks the inventory, and player controled progression.
This is a great example of a non-RPG though, i would suggest we look at it as Call of Duty.

hypothetical:
my p90 has stoping power so it does 60+20 points of damage, but you have juggernaught so it does 80-50 points of damage.

If we drop an inventory in we get:
terraria (my stargun does 14-17dps and i get a 25% boost from my Meteor armor)
which is still not an RPG because it lacks Player controled Character progression even though it has an inventory and item index.

However if we drop in Player controlled progression and an inventory/item index  with that stat based combat we Get (presence of all 3 my definition of the genre CRPG):
Deus Ex: HR, ME(1, 2) FO(3+), and ironically Pokemon....

Modifié par darth_lopez, 08 octobre 2011 - 08:14 .

[Phaelducan]

A far more useful discussion than "is X game an RPG or isn't it" is to look at the shared characteristics of any number of gestalt, or whole RPG's.

Take 5, or 10, or hell 50 of the most clearly defined examples of the Role Playing Game genre and analyze it's various categories that can be quantifiable. Inventory, leveling, skills, choice, customization, etc.

Instead of a black and white yes it is or no it isn't argument, instead why not look at what Mass Effect 2 and Dungeons and Dragons have in common and come to an agreement about how much disparity would have to exist to forcibly remove a game from the category.

We can all agree that Mass Effect 2 is more of an RPG than say... Duck Hunt. However, it might be considered less of one than say... GURPS. Without devolving into absolutes, there is such a thing as degree and just as a point of grammatical accuracy I stress that just because something is some sort of hybrid does not mean it does not contain the qualities of it's separate components.

TL:DR Just because Mass Effect 2 has elements of other genres does not remove it from the gene pool of RPG's.

[Prince Zeel]

Any game can be an RPG if you make it broad enough. Mass Effect use to be one, nows its just some streamline nonsense.

[RamirezWolfen]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Any game can be an RPG if you make it broad enough. Mass Effect use to be one, nows its just some streamline nonsense.

I'm not too sure about streamlined. I would say that it's not part of the traditional rpgs.

[Arcadian Legend]

Does it really matter what genre it is/is becoming? So long as you enjoy the trilogy, that's all that matters.

Modifié par DarkRiku7, 08 octobre 2011 - 11:16 .

[Phaelducan]

No, you can't make any game an RPG. That's the whole point, there are agreed upon characteristics than RPG's share. Now, some have more of them than others, true. That doesn't negate the characteristics that a game has, however.

Good example. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Has a few, but not many, characteristics of the genre. You level in multiplayer, and get new abilities. Those are RPG elements, but without any others, I would think any level-headed individual what hesitate to put it in the same category as The Elder Scrolls. Same with Call of Duty. Yes, there is progression and inventory of a sort. That's about it though, whereas most RPG's have that and several other key components.

Don't fall trap to all-or-nothing thinking errors.

[didymos1120]

Prince Zeel wrote...

Any game can be an RPG if you make it broad enough. Mass Effect use to be one, nows its just some streamline nonsense.

And what, specifically, is "streamline nonsense"?  I wasn't aware of such a genre.

[Phaelducan]

DarkRiku7 wrote...

Does it really matter what genre it is/is becoming? So long as you enjoy the trilogy, that's all that matters.

None of this matters... we are all arguing on a video game forum, not curing cancer. With that said, since this is a frequently reoccuring topic, it would seem that it is important enough to merit repeat argument.

As a point of reference though, I concur that labels shouldn't matter. I think Deus Ex was one of the best examples in recent memory of player-driven narrative, but there are MANY who disagree. Few things are as subjective as opinions on video games, but meh, here we are anyway.

[Phaelducan]

didymos1120 wrote...

Prince Zeel wrote...

Any game can be an RPG if you make it broad enough. Mass Effect use to be one, nows its just some streamline nonsense.

And what, specifically, is "streamline nonsense"?  I wasn't aware of such a genre.

Space Channel 5. Best example of steamline nonsense sub-genre of games. Also, it freaking ruled.

[Prince Zeel]

Meaning, it's taken all the rpg aspects, squeezed as hard as it could and produced Mass effect 3. Bioware tried its hardest to remove every rpg aspect it could, but still get the RPG lablel. I find the game to be a glorified shooter now. anyone would want to argue against that, hasn't been paying attention.

[RamirezWolfen]

Actually, Phaelducan, I think Assassin's Creed could be considered somewhat of an RPG, if you stretch your thinking. At least in AC2 and Brotherhood, you can buy better weapons and get better equipment, which has stats and such. And the missions have special objectives that if you complete them, you get 100% synchronization, which I think increases the amount of health you have.

At least I think.

[Phaelducan]

Logical fallacies in your argument, Zeel. "I find" is by definition your opinion, and stating that just because you don't believe something makes it untrue is by definition fallacious.

Also, you don't quantify "glorified" by referencing ME's shooter qualities. I cite Gears of War as Mass Effect 2's most direct comparison in terms of combat. However, Gears has functionally no RPG element at all. By "glorifying" do you mean adding a bunch of RPG elements?

If a bunch of RPG elements can be quantified, then the comparison can be made between ME2 and any other RPG out there.

[Phaelducan]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Actually, Phaelducan, I think Assassin's Creed could be considered somewhat of an RPG, if you stretch your thinking. At least in AC2 and Brotherhood, you can buy better weapons and get better equipment, which has stats and such. And the missions have special objectives that if you complete them, you get 100% synchronization, which I think increases the amount of health you have.

At least I think.

I agree that it can be considered "somewhat" of an RPG. It has many trappings of the genre, just not as many as other examples. If anything a good comparison would be Assassin's Creed and Zelda, as the progression system is very similar. Find upgrades which increase your overall effectiveness, though not though experience and leveling (Zelda 2 excluded). 

I think that's the point, there are a lot of previously rigid genre examples which have changed over time as developers realize that a lot of players like to see their character grow.

AC has many RPG components (well, like you said in 2 and Brotherhood, not so much in 1), but a strong argument can't be made that it has as many as a "true" or "classic" RPG such as Torment, or an Elder Scrolls game, for example. It's a matter of degree.

[RamirezWolfen]

Phaelducan wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Actually, Phaelducan, I think Assassin's Creed could be considered somewhat of an RPG, if you stretch your thinking. At least in AC2 and Brotherhood, you can buy better weapons and get better equipment, which has stats and such. And the missions have special objectives that if you complete them, you get 100% synchronization, which I think increases the amount of health you have.

At least I think.

I agree that it can be considered "somewhat" of an RPG. It has many trappings of the genre, just not as many as other examples. If anything a good comparison would be Assassin's Creed and Zelda, as the progression system is very similar. Find upgrades which increase your overall effectiveness, though not though experience and leveling (Zelda 2 excluded). 

I think that's the point, there are a lot of previously rigid genre examples which have changed over time as developers realize that a lot of players like to see their character grow.

AC has many RPG components (well, like you said in 2 and Brotherhood, not so much in 1), but a strong argument can't be made that it has as many as a "true" or "classic" RPG such as Torment, or an Elder Scrolls game, for example. It's a matter of degree.

Hmm... I agree. I guess it's more of an action adventure game with some RPG elements.

[Phaelducan]

Fiddles_stix wrote...

To be honest I don't think of ME1, 2 or 3 as RPGs, they have RPG elements but just because they're heavy on story I wouldn't call them RPGs.

I wouldn't even call DA:O or DA2 RPGs really, action RPGs maybe but I think there's a greater problem here of unnecessary labelling becoming coercive rather than constructive.

Hmm... I never thought story was a primary component of an RPG. See Dark Souls. Minimal story, heavy role-playing elements. 

Perhaps all labeling is unnecessary... but we humans sure love to label everything. That's why we have so many signs everywhere. 

As to the hybrid issue, I'm trying to remember back to the old NES strategy guide that came with the first console pack-in WAY back when. I think there were several "action-rpg" games listed, such as Rygar, even back in the 80's. It isn't a new concept that there are hybrids within the genre.