416 réponses à ce sujet

[Tokalla]

Genoq wrote...

Read this again.
"The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group,
cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the
value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in
whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the
Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of
vicariously experience those things"

He didn't say anything about the defining fundamentals, the objective necessary and sufficient conditions. He is talking about what he perseives as the "value" of a role-playing game, which is purely subjective. I may value a well-written script in a film, but a well written script is neither necessary nor sufficient for the film to qualify as such.

As for the second quote; I wonder how literally that statment was meant to be taken, or what rules he is referring to.

Actually, the first sentence covered his belief in the essence of roleplaying (not its value).  Bear in mind we are talking about someone who never approved of VG RPGs, as he felt they dulled the imagination and were lacking in intimacy.  He felt the most fundamental component of RPGs was other people.

Edit: Based on what I recall from his book (Role-Playing Mastery, which I have been unable to find after securing it in a location safely away from the hands of my now 3yr old daughter..it was hidden when she was almost 2), he likely means all rules.  He tended to have a very narrativist bent to his approach on gaming (though always bearing in mind that it was a game to be enjoyed by a group).  I recall a preference for concealed systems and rules to maintain player suspense and to prevent metagaming.

Modifié par Tokalla, 22 janvier 2010 - 10:43 .

[Genoq]

I didn't think "essence" meant quite the same thing as what I was was talking about, but fine, if that's what Gygax thinks the essence of an RPG is then I guess we're all boned. Obviously CRPGs don't try to emulate a cooperative experience with other people, unless you count NPC followers. Hell, that means that co-op Halo has more in common with the 'Essential RPG' than Fallout does, let alone Mass Effect.

You know what? That doesn't make any goddam sense. Again I have to question how literally that statement is supposed to be taken, but if that's what he thinks, and I guess he does, I would have to say that he is wrong. That statment is also very inconsistent with his earlier games, or later games for that matter, as they were in fact stat-heavy squad-based narrative driven wargames.

Modifié par Genoq, 22 janvier 2010 - 11:06 .

[Tokalla]

Genoq wrote...

I didn't think "essence" meant quite the same thing as what I was was talking about, but fine, if that's what Gygax thinks the essence of an RPG is then I guess we're all boned. Obviously CRPGs don't try to emulate a cooperative experience with other people, unless you count NPC followers. Hell, that means that co-op Halo has more in common with the 'Essential RPG' than Fallout does, let alone Mass Effect.

You know what? That doesn't make any goddam sense. Again I have to question how literally that statement is supposed to be taken, but if that's what he thinks, and I guess he does, I would have to say that he is wrong. That statment is also very inconsistent with his earlier games, or later games for that matter, as they were in fact stat-heavy squad-based narrative driven wargames.

Read the article if you don't believe me.  Here are some of the highlights for those not inclined to click the link:

"While Dungeons & Dragons became famous for its voluminous rules,
Mr. Gygax was always adamant that the game’s most important rule was to
have fun and to enjoy the social experience of creating collaborative
entertainment."

"These days, pen-and-paper role-playing games have largely been
supplanted by online computer games. Dungeons & Dragons itself has
been translated into electronic games, including Dungeons & Dragons
Online. Mr. Gygax recognized the shift, but he never fully approved. To
him, all of the graphics of a computer dulled what he considered one of
the major human faculties: the imagination."

“There is no intimacy; it’s not live,” he said of online games. “It’s
being translated through a computer, and your imagination is not there
the same way it is when you’re actually together with a group of
people. It reminds me of one time where I saw some children talking
about whether they liked radio or television, and I asked one little
boy why he preferred radio, and he said, ‘Because the pictures are so
much better.’  ”

According to Gygax, Borderlands is closer to an RPG than ME ever will be.  Of course, since definitions do actually evolve, this is simply what one of the founders of all RPGs felt should be fundamental to them.  Personally, I believe there is some merit to his perspective, but that RPGs have become defined by themselves and their fans since the days that Gygax defined them.

They were wargames because he evolved them out of a wargame.  RPGs did not become what they are in an instant, they have evolved into their current form since the first steps were taken ages ago (and like all first steps they were clumsy and uncertain).  As I said before, trying to define what RPGs are solely by the conventions of what they have been limited to is ignoring the intentions those who created the conventions were aspiring toward.  Gygax did the best he could to achieve the goal of creating a cooperative group game of collaborative entertainment, that doesn't mean he did it better than those who followed later.

Modifié par Tokalla, 22 janvier 2010 - 11:47 .

[todahouse21]

Kalfear wrote...

Soruyao wrote...

sakay wrote...

I think the backlash against the shooter elements of the game among classic RPGers has more to do with the fact that many of us find the shooter element...trying. 

As in we are bad at it. 

As in unless I am really concentrating I am almost as likely to shoot my companions as I am the enemy and dying constantly is really frustrating.  That is not fun and relaxing.

Not that all RPGers are as pathetic as I am, but most of us want the story and exploration out of an RPG.  The whole advantage of having an alter-ego that is far more buff and coordinated than I am is that my character should be far more coordinated than I am.

The story was worth it and I love the strategy.  Believe me, when you can barely hit the broadside of a barn, strategy is important.  I don't generally play shooters for a reason, though.  I'm not whining about it.  I just turned my Shepard into more of a support/healer and travelled with tanks. 

ME1 was a great game, but I can see why it didn't appeal to many of the hardcore RPG fans.

I have strong suspicions that you just voiced the issue that the majority of the complaints against this game are coming from right now.

There's a solution to this, and it's called an easier difficulty level.   But I think it's insulting to people to have to lower their difficulty level, especially when mass effect 1 was so stupidly easy that it convinced everyone they were amazing.

So your logical and quality responce is basically to say

YOU ALL SUCK? Play on easier mode.

WOW, I stand corrected, I see how you and yours being so helpful and dispelling concerns.

You completely missed the most important part of his post. But thats pretty par for course with you guys.

Shooters take the stratagy and thinking out of combat! IE: Combat is being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Thats NOT a improvement! and its NOT a RPG concept!

RPGs challenge, not stupify the players.

Dude, are you an idiot? You just quoted someone that said player skill based combat is too hard for them and used that as an example of how the combat is dumbed down. 

Huh?

The combat in ME 2 will involve finding cover, manuervering your squaddies into advantageous positions all while making sure you are firing on and hitting the enemies, watching your ammo levels and choosing the best abilities you can use based on their current cooldown. 

This compared to.

Find cover, spam abilities then hold down the trigger button while merely looking in the general direction of the enemy since the game practically aimed for you.

You're right. It has been so dumbed down. I believe the problem lies with shooter fans' inability to understand your logic due to your obvious intellectual magnificence. We see better combat making an already incredible series that much better. We should have understood that good combat breaks one of the main commandments of the Church the Chocobo.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rendar666 wrote...

Um... how does Mass Effect NOT have role playing? You choose everything that Commander Shepard does and you level up and decide what to say

No, you cannot.  You cannot choose what Shepard says, or even what Shepard does not say, because the Dialogue Wheel hides the results of your choices from you.

You have no control over Shepard in conversations in ME, and you will have even less in ME2 as a result of the interrupt system.

Schneidend wrote...

You must be right, I must be wrong.

I should put that quote in my signature.

Murmillos wrote...

Are you telling us that if somebody don't like an aspect or two that are staple elements of RPG's then you are not a "real" RPG fan.

If those elements are necessary conditions for the game to be an RPG, absolutely.  If you tell me you like lasagna, except that you don't like noodles so you only want lasagna that contains no noodles, then YOU DON'T LIKE LASAGNA.  Without the noodles, it's just a casserole.  It is not lasagna.

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

Apparently you aren't familiar with what the term 'RPG' means.  It means you step into the role of a character, and perform actions and decisions that you belive the character would make.  There's an immersive storyline, character development in terms of both story and equipment, and choices you have to make.  I would honestly love to hear one example of something, anything, that makes ME1 'not' an RPG.

The inability to make decisions during dialogue - that prevents ME from being an RPG.

Not once in the entire game are you given the opportinity to choose what Shepard will say and be confident that Shepard will say it as you intend.

Whereas, in DAO (or KotOR or Baldur's Gate) your character (or in BG's case, the character you're controlling, as any party member could speak on behalf of the party) says the line you chose exactly as you expect.  Every time.  This allows you to choose them intelligently.  But ME offers no such choice; never can you choose an option in dialogue and be confident you know what your character will say or do.

Static Entropy wrote...

 As a side note, I'd also like to point out that weapon skills made no sense in ME anyway: you're a frelling Spectre--you should know how to look down the scope of a sniper rifle, even if you're an Engineer.  Everything is, of course, IMHO.

You're partly right.  It made no sense that Shepard couldn't fire a pistol well at the start of the game.  But that was a problem of implementation, not with the stat-driven combat overall.  What ME2 has done is made Shepard ALWAYS be a lousy shot whenever his player is a lousy shot, and that makes even less sense.  Now, not only might Shepard not have skills that he absolutely should have within the lore of the game, but now he's incapable of learning those skills or improving.  He's become a proxy for the player rather than a character of his own.

ME's fans keep pointing out that Shepard isn't my character, that he's BioWare character and I'm just playing him.  So why does he suck with weapons if I suck with weapons?  If I really, really suck with weapons, then Shepard dies and this supposedly epic story is very very short (and not so epic).

And if we were meant to abuse the ability to aim while paused in order to overcome that, then we'd also be able to fire our weapons while paused (just as we can fire Biotic or Tech abilities while paused).  But we can't, because insists that the player's skill WILL MATTER with regard to Shepard's abiliy to shoot things.  This unequivocally makes Shepard not a character I am playing, but simply a proxy for me in the game world.  That is a difference in kind.

Tokalla wrote...

Language is merely a tool of communication.  If the majority believe a term means something, it gains that definition by virtue of common use.  This is how language works, and has worked for ages.p

That is how language works, but that is not how definitions work.  Definitions have a formal structure.  Definitions are static.

New definitions can arise, but the old definitions never go away.

You've studied too much linguistic history and not enough language theory.

[todahouse21]

Fine. Then show me an RPG where you have COMPLETE control of the dialogue. It doesn't exist outside of pen and paper. Every rpg drives the dialouge in a certain direction. Baldur's Gate did the same thing, as does Dragon Age. The difference is in ME Shepard speaks, granting you more investment in the character. The idea that any game offers you complete control over dialogue is pure fallacy. Were that the case I would have told Minsc and Boo to F*** off a million times.



As it pertains to the combat, this bothers me more than anything. From most of the posts it seems you guys are simply saying "We're going to suck at it, and that means it'll suck." Seriously? Practice, bring down the difficulty, play a support class (i.e. engineer, sentinel). But don't say it's not an rpg. It is, it's just not the type you like. You guys can't have it both ways. You can't say in one breath that its dumbed down and too hard.

[lord magnious]

Just thought I would put my two cents in:

My definition of an RPG (because this thread has proved that the definition of an RPG is subjective to personal preference.) is a game controlled by statistical guidelines. To say that an RPG is playing a role of character would mean every game is an RPG, even Halo and Gears(I do like both those games btw).  Statistical rules, a significant detail I might add, separate RPGs from other genres.


So based on my definition, has ME2 been dumbed down?

Can't say till I play, but based on what we've seen...yes and the fact they've removed party armor is certainly a decent indicator to that.

Does this I won't like the game, no.

I’m fairly certain I will enjoy ME2 even though it's less of an RPG, because I'm not limited solely to the RPG genre.

To me, as long as the codex makes sense and storyline is written well, ME2 will deliverer on all my expectations.

Modifié par lord magnious, 22 janvier 2010 - 09:58 .

[Genoq]

Tokalla wrote...

Read the article if you don't believe me.  Here are some of the highlights for those not inclined to click the link:

"While Dungeons & Dragons became famous for its voluminous rules,
Mr. Gygax was always adamant that the game’s most important rule was to
have fun and to enjoy the social experience of creating collaborative
entertainment."

"These days, pen-and-paper role-playing games have largely been
supplanted by online computer games. Dungeons & Dragons itself has
been translated into electronic games, including Dungeons & Dragons
Online. Mr. Gygax recognized the shift, but he never fully approved. To
him, all of the graphics of a computer dulled what he considered one of
the major human faculties: the imagination."

“There is no intimacy; it’s not live,” he said of online games. “It’s
being translated through a computer, and your imagination is not there
the same way it is when you’re actually together with a group of
people. It reminds me of one time where I saw some children talking
about whether they liked radio or television, and I asked one little
boy why he preferred radio, and he said, ‘Because the pictures are so
much better.’  ”

According to Gygax, Borderlands is closer to an RPG than ME ever will be.  Of course, since definitions do actually evolve, this is simply what one of the founders of all RPGs felt should be fundamental to them.  Personally, I believe there is some merit to his perspective, but that RPGs have become defined by themselves and their fans since the days that Gygax defined them.

They were wargames because he evolved them out of a wargame.  RPGs did not become what they are in an instant, they have evolved into their current form since the first steps were taken ages ago (and like all first steps they were clumsy and uncertain).  As I said before, trying to define what RPGs are solely by the conventions of what they have been limited to is ignoring the intentions those who created the conventions were aspiring toward.  Gygax did the best he could to achieve the goal of creating a cooperative group game of collaborative entertainment, that doesn't mean he did it better than those who followed later.

I did not say I didn't believe you, I said Gygax's statement makes no sense (which it doesn't) and that it is radically inconsistent with all of his published games that I know of. But that is what Gygax believed, so be it, I won't argue.

But whatever he wanted RPGs to be, that is not for the most part what they were, nor what they are; and certainly not what CRPGs are based upon. The CRPG was and is a well defined genre, changing only to become more and more like their PnP predecessors. You can see this throughout their history; from the early, fairly simple Ultima and Wizardry games, to Might and Magic and Betrayal at Krondor, then to more PnP-esque games like Wasteland and the Goldbox games, from there to Fallout 1&2 and PST, and finally hitting a crescendo (seemingly) with Arcanum.

There are other types of RPG of course; Action RPGs, Tactical RPGs, Dungeon crawlers, Japanese RPGs, MMOs, even some roguelikes qualify. but they all have one thing in common, gameplay is either fully, or at the very least mostly, based on the progression of character and or party (i.e player) statistics; and the outcome of those statistics when compared to other statistics, with or without a helpful dice-roll.

Modifié par Genoq, 22 janvier 2010 - 10:40 .

[Genoq]

To lord magnious:
I agree, ME1 barely qualified as an RPG in the first place. I love the ME setting, and as long as they haven't bollocksed that up I'm fine. ME as a shooter was both ****** poor and ****** easy, so improvment in that area is more than welcome.

To todahouse21:
1st. Don't call it "the church of the chocobo", I hate chocobos, and the games that spawned them, and all other games like them. I think you will find that most CRPG fans feel the same way I do concerning JRPGs.

2nd. My second (or possibly my first) favorite genre is FPS; and I have probably played more shooters than RPGs. My idea of a great FPS is a run through the Equinox WAD for Doom 2, which is more difficult than just about every FPS, on any difficulty, released in the last twelve years.


Edit: Again to todahouse21:
Just so you understand, in a well made western CRPG (Computer Role-Playing Game) there is no grinding, random encounters (not the way you think of them anyway), or effeminate man-children with giant swords. Though its worth noting that through the power of a robust character creation system, if you want to play an effeminate man-child, you can; along with every other architype you can think of.

Modifié par Genoq, 22 janvier 2010 - 10:27 .

[Murmillos]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If those elements are necessary conditions for the game to be an RPG, absolutely.  If you tell me you like lasagna, except that you don't like noodles so you only want lasagna that contains no noodles, then YOU DON'T LIKE LASAGNA.  Without the noodles, it's just a casserole.  It is not lasagna.

Can you all (but mostly you and Terror_K) stop with the god damn totally retarted analogies that make no god damn ****ing sense.  17 pages long so far and we can't even agree what makes an RPG, and if an RPG needs every single RPG aspect to be an RPG.

[Tokalla]

Genoq wrote...

I did not say I didn't believe you, I said Gygax's statement makes no sense (which it doesn't) and that it is radically inconsistent with all of his published games that I know of. But that is what Gygax believed, so be it, I won't argue.

But whatever he wanted RPGs to be, that is not for the most part what they were, nor what they are; and certainly not what CRPGs are based upon. The CRPG was and is a well defined genre, changing only to become more and more like their PnP predecessors. You can see this throughout their history; from the early, fairly simple Ultima and Wizardry games, to Might and Magic and Betrayal at Krondor, then to more PnP-esque games like Wasteland and the Goldbox games, from there to Fallout 1&2 and PST, and finally hitting a crescendo (seemingly) with Arcanum.

There are other types of RPG of course; Action RPGs, Tactical RPGs, Dungeon crawlers, Japanese RPGs, MMOs, even some roguelikes qualify. but they all have one thing in common, gameplay is either fully, or at the very least mostly, based on the progression of character and or party (i.e player) statistics; and the outcome of those statistics when compared to other statistics, with or without a helpful dice-roll.

Actually Gygax's belief is not contradictory to any of his work.  He did focus heavily on the collaborative aspects of games, as every game he made discouraged conflict among the party (even if the rules technically allowed it).  As I recall, in the AD&D DMG he indicates that no rule should stand in the way of the groups enjoyment, and encourages DMs to alter the rules (generally in subtle ways like randomly rolling dice or arbitrarily altering stats) to suit the needs of the mood and enjoyment of all.  Though he also makes it clear that consequences and risk are of vital importance for the players to feel as if they have achieved anything (thus discouraging letting heros survive simply because they are heros).  He favored using rules complexity to conceal such behavior from the players (and also greatly discouraged players from learning the complete rules or even reading the DMG at all in order for them to better enjoy the game).  His approach to these things was certainly not the most efficient (and he does have a tendency to be long winded in his writing...not that I am in any position to pass judgement on that =), but I would not assume the person who does something first would do it best. 

Regarding PnP RPGs, it is indeed what they were and are...Collaborative entertainment.  That is not to say they haven't become more, but to deny that playing a PnP RPG does not rely on the joint imagination of multiple people is ridiculous.  You simply cannot achieve what a PnP RPG was created to do without at least one other person, and even then the experience tends to get better as you add more individuals (up until a certain point where the game falls apart from too many people).

As I realize that VG RPGs are seeking to provide the experience of a PnP RPG, I feel that assigning character progression as the most vital component is no longer acceptable.  There was a time when a game that allowed you to create a character and control the evolution of their stats/skills/powers was the most significant way to allow the player to collaborate with those who made the game, but I don't feel that this remains true.  As more and more aspects of RPGs are assimilated into other games, it seems more clear to me that the limited range of interaction and nonstatistical development held in other types of games will become at least as critical in seperating RPGs from other genres.  I will use Borderlands as a prime example of this, as if we ignore the significance of anything beyond having character based progression, classes, levelling/experience systems, and looting/selling/inventory management then Borderlands is at least as much of an RPG as Final Fantasy (the original) or Dragon Warrior (I don't care how anyone feels about JRPGs, those two titles have always been considered solidly RPGs).  If we do not accept that the definition of what is essential for a VG RPG has changed, then Borderlands ceases to merely have elements of an RPG and simply becomes one entirely.  In my opinion, even though I very much enjoy playing it, Borderlands does not warrant being called an actual RPG (and I highly doubt I will feel it is as much or more of an RPG than ME2, as I feel that I have much more freedom to develop Shepard's character via nonstatistical means than Borderlands allows me to define its characters).

The thing that defines RPGs is not the interaction of stats with other stats (as all games have that by necessity, even Halo uses such a system), but how much influence the game allows you in defining your character and their role within the game itself.  I am simply saying that the flexibility to control/alter/evolve/progress my stats should no longer be considered more critical than my ability to make other choices that significantly impact my interactions with the game (as I feel a game allowing  for significant room to develop my role by means other than direct stat progression is a trait that better simulates the feeling of participating in a PnP RPG than how much it allows me to customize my combat role/prowess, manage my inventory, or whether or not it restricts the ability to access certain loot by virtue of required skills).

Modifié par Tokalla, 23 janvier 2010 - 01:33 .

[Genoq]

Tokalla wrote...

*snip*

If I have this right, the gist of what you're saying is "I value 'plot and dialogue' character development in RPGs more than 'stats and numbers' character development". If that is all you're trying to claim, I don't have a problem. What you or anyone else values most in an RPG or any game is entirely subjective; but what defines an RPG (or any game), is not.

What defines any video game genre is the method by which you play the game. In an RPG, this means the statistics-based player-influenced progression and development of one or more player characters; and that those player-influenced statistics are the primary means of interaction with the environment.

Everything else, whether you value it more or not, is irrelevant. Both Wasteland and Final Fantasy are undeniably RPGs, yet they have none of what you claim to value most; that is, non-statistical character development. In both games you have a four-man band of stat based figurines; no personality, no true character, no chance to develop those characters beyond player guided statistical progression. Yet those games are very much RPGs.

In short, here are my points of contention:

1. The only necessary and sufficient conditions for a game to be rightfully called an RPG is that the primary method of play is the progressive, player-guided development of player-character(s) statistics; and that the comparison of those statistics with those of the environment, aided or unaided by dice-rolls, random number generators etc, is the primary method of interaction with the rest of the game world.

2. Any game not meeting the above requirments, regardless of any other qualities the may possess, can not rightfully be called an RPG.

That's it.

[Tokalla]

Genoq wrote...

If I have this right, the gist of what you're saying is "I value 'plot and dialogue' character development in RPGs more than 'stats and numbers' character development". If that is all you're trying to claim, I don't have a problem. What you or anyone else values most in an RPG or any game is entirely subjective; but what defines an RPG (or any game), is not.

What defines any video game genre is the method by which you play the game. In an RPG, this means the statistics-based player-influenced progression and development of one or more player characters; and that those player-influenced statistics are the primary means of interaction with the environment.

Everything else, whether you value it more or not, is irrelevant. Both Wasteland and Final Fantasy are undeniably RPGs, yet they have none of what you claim to value most; that is, non-statistical character development. In both games you have a four-man band of stat based figurines; no personality, no true character, no chance to develop those characters beyond player guided statistical progression. Yet those games are very much RPGs.

In short, here are my points of contention:

1. The only necessary and sufficient conditions for a game to be rightfully called an RPG is that the primary method of play is the progressive, player-guided development of player-character(s) statistics; and that the comparison of those statistics with those of the environment, aided or unaided by dice-rolls, random number generators etc, is the primary method of interaction with the rest of the game world.

2. Any game not meeting the above requirments, regardless of any other qualities the may possess, can not rightfully be called an RPG.

That's it.

My contention is that no objectively true definition of what constitutes an RPG currently exists, as no actual regulatory body exists to define or standardize precisely what constitutes an RPG in any medium.  Since it is a genre I highly doubt it will ever be as rigidly defined as many here seem to believe or wish.  Especially considering your above definition seems to be trying to encompass both PnP and VG RPGs.  If it is meant only in regards to VG RPGs, then I feel you have overlooked the very premise upon which the genre was created in an electronic medium.  VG RPGs seek to recreate the experience of a PnP RPG, however this is achieved should always take a backseat to how close it comes to reaching that goal.  At which point the more freedom a player has to influence the game world in various ways (which character development is certainly one aspect of) becomes much more critical than a specific manner of doing this.

According to your "definitive" definition not only does it seem that Borderlands an actual RPG that uses shooter combat elements, but one can make a very good argument for Castlevania: Symphony of the Night being an RPG too.  C:SotN includes progression mechanics and the player can choose to play as either Richter or Alucard (provided you have beaten the game and are aware of the code, which is why this is merely an arguement and not definitively an RPG).  Since the earliest renditions of D&D only grant player guidance of character development at the initial creation (the only difference between two fighting men would be their initially rolled stats, which do not change, and their level), C:SotN would not be very different than playing a premade character in a 1 on 1 PnP RPG session in regards to your critical elements of an RPG.  Now, I honestly don't believe that to be the case, but I would have to concede that it has at least as much player input into character development as several JRPGs that are solidly considered RPGs (Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy IV, Secret of Mana, etc).  So, by your definition, is Tony Hawk's Underground 2 an RPG?

I accept that to you that definition of an RPG may be sufficient, but trying to claim that as an immutable and objective truth is a fallacy.  Until there is a body that standardizes and regulates the definition of what an RPG is, there will never be anything but subjective intepretations of what defines the genre (which is actually quite common for genres among any medium, as what defines a horror movie now is quite different than what qualified at varying times in the past).

I also feel that by removing what those who created the VG RPG were trying to do from how you define an VG RPG, you undermine all they were trying to achieve by placing priority on how they attempted it (without regard to how much success they met with those attempts).  To further my movie comparison, I find it a rather like attatching the word "horror" to anything with the undead or lycanthropes in it, or "sci-fi" to anything involving aliens or space.

I readily agree that your definition is a fairly good indicator if something is likely to be an RPG (as I definitely side with the idea that Borderlands is primarily a shooter that has RPG elements, but by your definition it seems to be much more of an RPG that utilizes shooter combat elements) in the past, and likely even now.  However, I believe it to be a grave mistake to neglect the purpose that a game traditionally designed with those elements sought to reach in a time when RPG elements are being borrowed much more frequently by other genres.

[Genoq]

Tokalla wrote...
*snip*

Read. This. Again.

"In short, here are my points of contention:

1. The only necessary and
sufficient conditions for a game to be rightfully called an RPG is that
the primary method of play is the progressive, player-guided
development of player-character(s) statistics; and that the comparison
of those statistics with those of the environment, aided or unaided by
dice-rolls, random number generators etc, is the primary method of
interaction with the rest of the game world.

2. Any game not
meeting the above requirments, regardless of any other qualities they
may possess, can not rightfully be called an RPG."

There lies the key, in one word: primary. Maybe I should have said 'dominance'.
The reason the Tony Hawk game or Castlevania do not qualify as RPGs is because whatever RPG elements they may have are not dominant, they (the RPG elements) are secondary.

Here's a guide:
Mass Effect-RPG dominant, shooter subjacent. Is an RPG

Deus Ex-RPG dominant, shooter subjacent. Is an RPG

Bioshock-shooter dominant, RPG subjacent. Is not an RPG

VtM: Bloodlines-RPG dominant, shooter subjacent. Is

X-Com: UFO Defence-TBS dominant, RPG subjacent. Is not

Jagged Aliance 2-RPG dominant, TBS subjacent. Is

Diablo 2-RPG dominant, Hack&Slash subjacent. Is

Nethack-Hack&Slash dominant, RPG subjacent. Is not

I think one of the major problems is that most/all "console gamers" have never even played a "pure" CRPG. Their choices are either highly ambiguous RPG/action game hybrids, or consolized JRPGs.
While JRPGs are indeed "solidly defined RPGs" and closer to pure CRPGs, a true CRPG is a very, very different experience. And if you had ever played Fallout, or Arcanum, or Planescape: Torment, or even Ultima VII; you would most likely understand what I'm trying to say.


Edit: I should note that none of the games on the "guide" are pure RPGs; They are all RPG subtypes. Pure RPGs can not be divided into dominant/subjacent qualities; they are pure RPG, as I outlined in "Point of contention 1".

Modifié par Genoq, 23 janvier 2010 - 08:48 .

[Tokalla]

Genoq wrote...

Read. This. Again.

"In short, here are my points of contention:

1. The only necessary and
sufficient conditions for a game to be rightfully called an RPG is that
the primary method of play is the progressive, player-guided
development of player-character(s) statistics; and that the comparison
of those statistics with those of the environment, aided or unaided by
dice-rolls, random number generators etc, is the primary method of
interaction with the rest of the game world.

2. Any game not
meeting the above requirments, regardless of any other qualities they
may possess, can not rightfully be called an RPG."

There lies the key, in one word: primary. Maybe I should have said 'dominance'.
The reason the Tony Hawk game or Castlevania do not qualify as RPGs is because whatever RPG elements they may have are not dominant, they (the RPG elements) are secondary.

Here's a guide:
Mass Effect-RPG dominant, shooter subjacent. Is an RPG

Deus Ex-RPG dominant, shooter subjacent. Is an RPG

Bioshock-shooter dominant, RPG subjacent. Is not an RPG

VtM: Bloodlines-RPG dominant, shooter subjacent. Is

X-Com: UFO Defence-TBS dominant, RPG subjacent. Is not

Jagged Aliance 2-RPG dominant, TBS subjacent. Is

Diablo 2-RPG dominant, Hack&Slash subjacent. Is

Nethack-Hack&Slash dominant, RPG subjacent. Is not

I think one of the major problems is that most/all "console gamers" have never even played a "pure" CRPG. Their choices are either highly ambiguous RPG/action game hybrids, or consolized JRPGs.
While JRPGs are indeed "solidly defined RPGs" and closer to pure CRPGs, a true CRPG is a very, very different experience. And if you had ever played Fallout, or Arcanum, or Planescape: Torment, or even Ultima VII; you would most likely understand what I'm trying to say.


Edit: I should note that none of the games on the "guide" are pure RPGs; They are all RPG subtypes. Pure RPGs can not be divided into dominant/subjacent qualities; they are pure RPG, as I outlined in "Point of contention 1".

As I said, ignoring the goal of why the genre was created (to recreate the experience of a PnP RPG) by placing the method of how that goal is attempted as more important that whether it is achieved seems to defeat the purpose of the genre having been created at all.  According to your rigid definition AD&D (played with no optional rules) is not an actual RPG, which I disagree with entirely.  If that is not what you are trying to say, then the inclusion of dice in your definition seems strange, as computers always use methods other than dice (even if graphically showing them).  I have actually played Fallout 1 &2, Arcanum, and many other CRPGs.  I am simply understanding that a game does not need to be an ideal RPG for it to belong in the genre.  Even your own list shows that you place other criteria as relevant to define a true rpg, you are simply not able to express what those aspects are in a rigid enough definition to demonstrate what makes Fallout more of an RPG (in your opinion) than many JRPGs (something you have noted as not being true RPGs in your strictist sense), else you would be able to see that a game incorporating those other traits with enough significance should not be releGated to being utterly not an RPG by virtue of not being progression based enough to meet an arbitrary standard you seem to have not mentioned in you definition (as saying primary does not actually negate that in THUG 2 you only interact with the game world via the stats you are capable of influencing, or that C:SotN only allows for combat therefor one is interacting with the game world primarily via those progressing stats with an option to play two different characters who have different stats).

From my perspective, you are trying to define something not by considering what that concept is and sets out to do, but by evaluating what a large number of the things you consider to be examples of that thing for their common traits.  While that is certainly a good way to guage if any given thing might belong in that category, it is not a very good means to define the concept of a genre.  For example, you cannot define the horror genre of movies by simply by assuming the inclusion of vampires, werewolves, or gore is sufficient.  Those things are not the purpose of the genre, merely methods to achieve that purpose.  Nor would you be able to define the concept of a horror movie exclusively  by any of the methods they utilize, as what constitutes horror/terror is an evolving concept that shifts as society changes.  The core definition of a genre should never be based on its methods, as all methods will eventually be borrowed by other genres.  As you have already admitted much earlier, the VG RPG is meant to recreate the experience of the PnP RPG, so why you are so hung up on defining RPGs in a manner that makes the original PnP RPGs that the first games in the genre were attempting to emulate cease to qualify as RPGs is strange.  In essence your definition is too rigid, though I certainly do agree it is a reasonable guage for if something most likely is an RPG (as it incorporates the most common traits).  I am simply unwilling to accept Borderlands as more of an RPG than AD&D or Basic D&D, as the differences between them in areas other than character progression are too significant in the eyes of anyone who has exposure to PnP RPGs.

Of course, you are also making an inherent mistake trying to place the concept of the genre over both PnP RPGs and VG RPGs to begin with, as one group is attempting to emulate the other (which is why your emphasis on the common traits to VG RPGs becomes too limiting to PnP RPGs).  If you honestly feel that that definition describes both equally, then I would say you missed the point of what every PnP RPG developer I have ever encountered (met, read about. etc) has tried to achieve by believing they are nothing but small scale progression inclusive wargames (and if you have any experience with Toon, Teenagers from Outer Space, or the various White Wolf games, then it should be obvious that isn't the point).

[Gorionsson]

All this discussion about what makes a true RPG, is interesting.

However, most people complain because they like a certain set of game mechanics. Less shooter/more shooter, pause and play,- whatever.

A good RPG is all about story, meaningful choices, and depth of character, anyway.

I'm no good at shooters, but I'll play ME2 on the easiest setting, and enjoy what little RP it has to offer.

I also agree with everything Sylvius said concerning the dialogue wheel.



PS: To the one suggesting "old school" players all love Bethestas games:

You're just plain wrong.

I

[Kalfear]

Gorionsson wrote...

All this discussion about what makes a true RPG, is interesting.
However, most people complain because they like a certain set of game mechanics. Less shooter/more shooter, pause and play,- whatever.
A good RPG is all about story, meaningful choices, and depth of character, anyway.
I'm no good at shooters, but I'll play ME2 on the easiest setting, and enjoy what little RP it has to offer.
I also agree with everything Sylvius said concerning the dialogue wheel.

PS: To the one suggesting "old school" players all love Bethestas games:
You're just plain wrong.
I

agree, I hate Bethestas games as they all so freaking weak in story and lack direction in favor of mindless shooter or hack and slash mechanics. And I definately qualify as old school. Honestly, I dont even consider FallOut 3 to be a RPG as its main story was so short and weak. That game was all about shooting and head shots and blood. Hell I suck at shooters and even I found Fallout3 to be embaressingly easy to master and dominate in. Oblivion and Morrowind were not much better. Fall Out 3 had huge potential but that potential was missed on almost every level. God I hope ME2 doesnt end up having FO3/Halo type combat. That would seriously be 5 steps backwards from ME1 combat in difficulty ranking.

I think Sylvius hit everything pretty much on the head but as we already see, it will simply go over the shooter crowds heads. They have their twisted version and not open to hearing any real truths on the topic.

Modifié par Kalfear, 23 janvier 2010 - 09:35 .