metatheurgist wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
Just as a bit preemptive measure (which is silly as I'm going to bed after this... don't make me come back to tears), I am pretty much in the camp of "RPGs have a rather looseish definition that many of us feel share larger scale elements, but some of the finer details can be disputed forever."
As such, I'd prefer we not go too far into defining what is or is not an RPG (or action RPG), as I find the precision of the definition is somewhat pliable and quite personal.
See...I want RPGs to have a solid definition. That way companies can't claim to be making an RPG when they aren't. When I buy shoes I want shoes not some loose interpretation of shoes. I am, however, willing to concede that the RPG definition boat has long since sailed away into the sea of marketing on the riptide of maximum demographic penetration and profitability. 
Do you consider sandals shoes? What about tennis shoes? High heels? Crocs?
If you are talking to a runner about shoes, they would look at you crazy if you started asking them how much they like a stilleto. Similarly, if you are talking to someone who works in a business/professional environment, asking them if they want a water-proof croc would likely have people scratching their heads.
A shoe isn't always a shoe. And a video game is infinitely more complex than a shoe. Anything with levels or stats was (and, in some circles, still is) considered an RPG. Someitmes a certain combat system works as people's definition. While other people may call a dialogue system of any sort the basis of an RPG.
So, RPG, as a term, is hard to define. Which just means that people need to be more descriptive.
For instance, I feel that the Dragon Age series has been an RPG that rests on two core tenets - player character definition and control (meaning the player gets to create and define their own character, in terms of background, behavior, dialogue and combat class) and combat that allows full and equal control of party members (meaning I can control my companions and give them tasks just as fluidly and easily as I could the main character). I could easily call it a "Player Character Controlled RPG with Party-Based Combat."
To that end, having elements which are action based are not, inherently, bad. HOWEVER... action tends to include one thing - individual player control. To dodge enemy attacks, or perform QTE button mashing, or time your attacks to counter an enemy... all of this is done by controlling one character, not managing your party. If I can do something via taking direct control of a character (more action, single-character based) with a higher success rate than instead of giving a command to do the same action (more tactical, party based), then that is a system that favors the single-character based approach and hurts the party based one.
Since I view and enjoy DA as a series that places its combat focus on a party-based approach, where you can control all characters with equal levels of fidelity and a system where orders and tactics given to a character are on par in efficacy with taking direct control yourself, I would dislike if the series moved away from this style to instead use a style that designs the game to be controlled by one character the majority of the time in order to get the best results in combat instances.
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 septembre 2013 - 03:18 .
Retour en haut
