75 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Yes it is an rpg, despite what people think. Yes the combat is better than most other "action rpgs". I'm surprised to see that you're still on this site

If Amalur is an RPG, then Tiger Woods is an RPG. And the combat involves more barrel roll and button mashing than a DMC game, so different opinions and all that, but I found the game to be absolute trash.

I'm still here because I choose to be. Let's just leave it at that.

[Fast Jimmy]

Why do you think it is not an rpg?

It is an action adventure game with dialogue, equipment and leveling. It's a poor man's Zelda with a character creator and a choice of classes.

It's like the EA exec said in the other thread - every game is going to have these options going forward. The Career modes of NBA2K games have all of this - your position on the court (or class) determines your characters strengths and weaknesses, you can use experience gained to develop him in certain directions, you can make him look how you want, where you can buy better gear to enhance your player's appearance and performance and you can choose dialogue options in your post-game press conferences. This is coupled with a system that is lightly guided by the stats and abilities but is primarily based on player action, twitch reflex and skill.



In light of this paradigm shift where all of these elements are going to exist in a CoD multiplayer match as it will a narrative-based interactive story, either every game is an RPG or a more narrow definition needs to be applied. RPG combat is based in a history of character stats and skills, combined with random luck, being the determiner of success. They were originally designed as war game simulations, to reduce the individual unit's relevance and focus on group/army tactics. That's the foundation of the Dungeons & Dragons models of the past, which were the inspiration for nearly every RPG for the first two or three decades of the video game industry. Games that reduce player skill down to managing the placement of units and the strategic use of skills/equipment/etc. in combat were the backbone of the original RPG combat systems.

Any game where my character can have superhuman stats to shoot a bow and where I as the player can shoot the floor (or vice versa, where my player has never even seen a sniper rifle but can make a head shot from 400 yards away due to gaming the aiming system) is not an RPG. It is an action adventure game with RPG elements.

Otherwise, where is the line drawn? Is it just an RPG because you can talk to an NPC that stands around a non-combat area? Gears of War lets you do that. Is it just an RPG because you can wear equipment with stats? FIFA lets you do that. Is it an RPG because the player encounters monsters and swords and treasure? God of War lets you do that.

It's not simply a matter where if you include enough RPG stat elements or NPCs with speaking roles that it becomes an RPG. It has to do something other genres do not - like separating player skill from character skill in a very clear manner. You are playing the role of that character - their strengths are your strengths, their limitations are your limitations. Having those characteristics be minimalized by how well the player can do the action in question is the opposite of role playing.

[bEVEsthda]

Peoples' preferences are a load of BS now? Good to know.

 

Do you think that your generalization is clever?

 

But you're welcome. It's all in the context. If you approach RPGs wanting an action game, and want to play it for enjoying the action, then you indeed do bring a load of BS.

 

There are "action-RPG"s. Stick to those.

[Fast Jimmy]

Do you think that your generalization is clever?

But your welcome. It's all in the context. If you approach RPGs wanting an action game, and want to play it for enjoying the action, then you indeed do bring a load of BS.

There are "action-RPG"s. Stick to those.

And as I discussed, with every game now incorporating level progression, equipment and stats, these are really just action games with conversation options.

[bEVEsthda]

Oh I so love assumptions about things I enjoy.

 

Well, it's obvious that you do, but I would wonder what the post you quoted have to do with that?

[Aimi]

In light of this paradigm shift where all of these elements are going to exist in a CoD multiplayer match as it will a narrative-based interactive story, either every game is an RPG or a more narrow definition needs to be applied.

Couldn't one also say the same about the label "action game"? It seems like you don't apply that term with the same sort of rigor that you do "RPG".

I'm with you on how genre hallmarks have been spilling into each other and how games have been incorporating ideas from all over the place. But to me, that mostly points up how dubious the creation of some sort of firm intersubjective classification system actually is. I see the same thing in my own field, where the overarching annaliste-style labels like "feudalism" have been increasingly deprecated as insufficiently descriptive (when not outright wrong) while at the same time often misleading, especially to the casual observer. Nobody wants to say "feudal" anymore because the term carries along a ton of historical baggage, and most of it doesn't apply to any given situation.

It'd be silly to say that genre doesn't exist, but to create an ironclad taxonomy isn't, in my opinion, useful. These sorts of things are always going to have fuzzy edges and copious amounts of borrowing.

And, y'know, what matters to you in creating the narrower definition of RPG isn't necessarily what matters to other people. Nor is the historical provenance of the term quite so clear-cut to me as it is to you. D&D, for example, took a lot from wargaming, true, but it also took from Diplomacy, a game with no meaningful statistics which emphasized a player's ability to play a role to everybody else in the game in order to negotiate/coerce/cheat what she wanted out of them. For people who care about the classification RPG in and of itself, why should it be restricted to one aspect of the genre while ignoring others? And why focus on primordial aspects of the genre anyway?

[Fast Jimmy]

Interesting. However, those superhuman abilities have a stat or card system behind them. Those stats and level up options determine the effectiveness behind every use. Wouldn't that give it the argument of being an rpg? Basically treading on the line of being an rpg vs being a poorly designed rpg.

Not defending it, just creating conversation btw.

Conversation is good.

Going back to NBA2K... you can "level up" your character's free throw ability. However, even with max points in the stat, the player can just plain suck at the free throw mechanic, despite the game making the mini game easier with these stat boosts, and miss every one. Similarly, a player can have an absolutely abysmal stat and, if they have good reflexes and can "beat" the free throw mini game, they can hit every free throw they take.

In Mass Effect, you can have a Shephard Soldier with fully maxed out sniper skills gains the ability to have the target move in slow motion and focus right on a target. Yet my expert sniper character can still suck at aiming and miss shot after shot after shot. Similarly, if my Adept Shephard never takes a single rank in Sniper rifles, I can pick one up and, by overcoming the "shakiness" of the aiming and by knowing that my shots will drift X amount of inches to the right or left outside of where the reticule is aimed, I can make a headshot that kills my enemy.

In Skyrim, I can have a character with 100 points in Sneak and in Bow try and sneak up to a character and shoot them, but miss due to me aiming the bow at the ground, which "reveals" myself from hiding. Similarly, I can stay 200 feet away with a character who has 10 points in Sneak and Bow, go into stealth mode, "aim" the bow in the sky to cover distance it wouldn't usually cover and adjust for exactly how "off" the reticule aim is, and make a Sneak Attack Bow shot that drops most characters. And, if it doesn't kill them, I remain in Sneak and, being so far away, remain unseen. Allowing my completely unstealthy non-archer to silently snipe any enemy to death from huge distances.

In Dragon Age: Inquisition, I can have a high-level rogue with high stats in Dexterity fail to dodge a dragon flying down that I see ten seconds in advance. I can also have a low-level rogue with low stats in Dexterity succeed in dodging any attack I can due to player reflex alone.

In Dragon Age 2, I can see a Rage Demon begin to materialize behind me and begin its "Assassination" attack animation, which can one-shot many characters. My heavy-armor-wearing, low Dex warrior I am directly controlling can see this and kite around the attack completely, even after the animation has begun, due to my player reflexes and knowledge of what that animation is. My light-armor-wearing, high added rogue whom I am not controlling will never dodge this attack and will take huge damage without my player-assisted reflexes.

In Dragon Age: Origins, a character with appropriate stats could equip any weapon or armor in the game and heir ability to hit their enemy was driven by their stats and their appropriate skills. If an enemy or character attack animation began, there was no way to "dodge" this outside of your player having very high Dex or appropriate skills (barring the Ogre's charge, something I would hold up as a gamey flaw in DA:O). The shuffling of characters in combat, often complained about, is due to character animations not BEGINNING until the attack roll and damage had already been done - the computer was merely showing the player the result of what had already been calculated due to your character's stats.

In Baldur's Gate 2, all hits, misses, damage, movement speed, and skill/spell efficacy made by the entire party were determined by character sheet stats in real time. If a player ran away from a pursuing enemy, they were likely to get hacked apart, making "kiting" nearly impossible.

In Fallout 2, all hits, misses, damage and movement speed made by their single controlled character are determined by character sheet stats. The game is turn based, where players can only move as fast as their character has Agility score to allow and then are vulnerable to enemy retaliation in their next turn.

In Ultima VI, all hits, misses, damage and movement speed made by their party characters are determined by character sheet stats. The game is turn based, where players can only attack and dodge as their character has Dexterity score to allow and then are vulnerable to enemy retaliation in their next turn.




The further down that list you go, the less player speed/skill is involved with taking direct actions and, instead, requires the player to play combat tactically, managing where they placed themselves and their party in combat and how they leveraged their resources. DA2 is iffy to me. Everything below that is character skill driven and varying levels of party control and is, in my mind, RPG combat. Everything else are action games with RPG elements, where the stats merely help the player overcome the action elements (but where the player's skill can cover almost any deficiency of the character's skills).

[bEVEsthda]

What was the point of pointing this out?

 

 

Peoples' preferences are a load of BS now? Good to know.

 

 

Oh I so love assumptions about things I enjoy.

 

 

Can't understand the things you yourself type eh? It's all good.

 

Well,.. I think I've given you enough chances by now.

[Fast Jimmy]

Couldn't one also say the same about the label "action game"? It seems like you don't apply that term with the same sort of rigor that you do "RPG".

An action game requires success be based on player reflexes and manual coordination. Simple as that. Call of Duty, God of War, Madden, Need for Speed, Mario, Street Fighter - these are all action games and are representative of different sub-genres (FPS, pure-action, sports, racing sims, platformers, fighting games, respectively). I wouldn't lump a video game version of Sudoko in this (and it's obviously not an RPG). So I don't see how I'm NOT applying the definition just as rigorously - there are just tons and tons and tons of games that base their success on player reflex.

And, y'know, what matters to you in creating the narrower definition of RPG isn't necessarily what matters to other people. Nor is the historical provenance of the term quite so clear-cut to me as it is to you. D&D, for example, took a lot from wargaming, true, but it also took from Diplomacy, a game with no meaningful statistics which emphasized a player's ability to play a role to everybody else in the game in order to negotiate/coerce/cheat what she wanted out of them. For people who care about the classification RPG in and of itself, why should it be restricted to one aspect of the genre while ignoring others? And why focus on primordial aspects of the genre anyway?

For one, I don't care if my definition matters to other people. I can back my reasons for it up with logic, while all other people seem to be able to say is "well, it says RPG on the box and has dragons and stuff, so it's an RPG." I might not reach a consensus, but I'll at least be better articulated on why I like what I like.

And for two, this is why I have repeatedly used the word RPG combat, as character definition and role playing as a social component is a different nest of vipers. I'm approaching this strictly from a gameplay perspective.


I used the "primordial roots," as you say, because that is one mechanic that has been clear throughout the history of RPGs, both video game and PnP - the character stats and skills trump the player's. As time has passed, however, video games have progressed (and regressed) in story telling, character creation and player agency over a character. All still fall short of PnP.

Ultima 7 was an open world RPG with a story that the player could pursue at their own pace (or not at all), but which had almost totally linear conversation options and one static way for the game to end (aside from casting a doomsday spell). But by that time's standards, it was pinnacle RPG.

Today, Call of Duty: Black Ops has choices which result in different endings and character development. Yet no one is calling it an RPG.

Story, character control and role playing options are something we've seen very strongly in PnP RPGs, but which video games have struggled to capture. However, video games HAVE been able to ALWAYS emulate the stat-based, gameplay aspect of these RPGs. That's why I'm choosing to focus on it.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Imagine that you're working at a fast food counter and the game is a customer, then ask the game, "Do you want fries with that?"

[Fast Jimmy]

This is actually false as I've seen players miss free throws with a "Perfect Release". So stats play more of a role in the success rate than it used to.

Still - the vast majority of the outcome is based on player timing. RPG combat, by my definition, should have no player timing/reflex.

[Aimi]

An action game requires success be based on player reflexes and manual coordination. Simple as that. Call of Duty, God of War, Madden, Need for Speed, Mario, Street Fighter - these are all action games and are representative of different sub-genres (FPS, pure-action, sports, racing sims, platformers, fighting games, respectively). I wouldn't lump a video game version of Sudoko in this (and it's obviously not an RPG). So I don't see how I'm NOT applying the definition just as rigorously - there are just tons and tons and tons of games that base their success on player reflex.

Sure, but you don't seem to think that the broadness of your definition of "action game" makes it less useful. Yet you do think that a broad definition of "RPG" is less useful than a narrower one. It just seems a little bizarre to me.
 

For one, I don't care if my definition matters to other people. I can back my reasons for it up with logic, while all other people seem to be able to say is "well, it says RPG on the box and has dragons and stuff, so it's an RPG." I might not reach a consensus, but I'll at least be better articulated on why I like what I like.

Okay, but you've taken issue with other people's personal definition of "RPG" in this thread where it conflicts with yours. I believe that that's a little unfair.
 

And for two, this is why I have repeatedly used the word RPG combat, as character definition and role playing as a social component is a different nest of vipers. I'm approaching this strictly from a gameplay perspective.


I used the "primordial roots," as you say, because that is one mechanic that has been clear throughout the history of RPGs, both video game and PnP - the character stats and skills trump the player's. As time has passed, however, video games have progressed (and regressed) in story telling, character creation and player agency over a character. All still fall short of PnP.

Ultima 7 was an open world RPG with a story that the player could pursue at their own pace (or not at all), but which had almost totally linear conversation options and one static way for the game to end (aside from casting a doomsday spell). But by that time's standards, it was pinnacle RPG.

Today, Call of Duty: Black Ops has choices which result in different endings and character development. Yet no one is calling it an RPG.

Story, character control and role playing options are something we've seen very strongly in PnP RPGs, but which video games have struggled to capture. However, video games HAVE been able to ALWAYS emulate the stat-based, gameplay aspect of these RPGs. That's why I'm choosing to focus on it.

Well, it's not clear to me that "RPG combat" need be defined as what you're saying. RPG combat, to me, is simply the way that combat takes place in RPGs - whatever RPGs are defined as. If your personal definition of "RPG" is narrower than somebody else's, shifting the discussion to "RPG combat" doesn't really add common ground. It just adds unnecessary terminology.

False positives are probably going to exist for pretty much any attempt to classify genre. You point out that leveling up and plot choices exist in CoD games, but nobody calls them RPGs. Fair enough, but how do you differentiate your own definition of RPG combat from the sorts of turn-based war and 'strategy' games that you highlight as progenitors of PnP RPGs? Nobody refers to the likes of Advance Wars or Civilization V as role-playing games, as far as I'm aware, despite the same formula of statistically determined combat, skill progression, some RNG, and no twitch; Fire Emblem is more often described as having RPG elements but clearly the demarcation line isn't all that stark. And, to take a different tack, whither RPGs with no combat?

This isn't to say your definition of RPG, or RPG combat, or whatever, is wrong. It's not a bad definition. You've probably thought about it far more than I have. It's simply to point out that I believe it's a little unfair to act as though other definitions - with the same sorts of benefits and flaws as yours - are bad.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fire Emblem's not an RPG? When did that happen?

Right now. BOOM.

That just happened.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sure, but you don't seem to think that the broadness of your definition of "action game" makes it less useful. Yet you do think that a broad definition of "RPG" is less useful than a narrower one. It just seems a little bizarre to me.

It is no less broad than my definition of RPG combat. It's exactly as narrow. It just so happens that many more games have been developed to fit the definition of an action game.

Okay, but you've taken issue with other people's personal definition of "RPG" in this thread where it conflicts with yours. I believe that that's a little unfair.

I'm stating a supposition - Kingdoms of Amalur is not an RPG. I'm backing that up with a review of the game's features, comparisons to other RPG titles + mechanics and well defined logic.

That's how you debate something. You don't say "well, the definition of a word can be open to interpretation such that anything could be applied to it equally, however in my reasoning it should stand that..." That's not how you debate. That's how you muddy the waters of a discussion.

If someone can clearly refute why my statement that KoA is, in fact, an RPG, without referring to mechanics or features that are found nearly universally in non-RPG games, then the debate continues.

Well, it's not clear to me that "RPG combat" need be defined as what you're saying. RPG combat, to me, is simply the way that combat takes place in RPGs - whatever RPGs are defined as. If your personal definition of "RPG" is narrower than somebody else's, shifting the discussion to "RPG combat" doesn't really add common ground. It just adds unnecessary terminology.

RPG combat is the majority of the gameplay in an RPG. Hence, RPG are strongly characterized by their combat systems.

False positives are probably going to exist for pretty much any attempt to classify genre. You point out that leveling up and plot choices exist in CoD games, but nobody calls them RPGs. Fair enough, but how do you differentiate your own definition of RPG combat from the sorts of turn-based war and 'strategy' games that you highlight as progenitors of PnP RPGs? Nobody refers to the likes of Advance Wars or Civilization V as role-playing games, as far as I'm aware, despite the same formula of statistically determined combat, skill progression, some RNG, and no twitch; Fire Emblem is more often described as having RPG elements but clearly the demarcation line isn't all that stark. And, to take a different tack, whither RPGs with no combat?

Strategy games rarely use characters, but rather nondescript units. In addition, they usually do not level up, do not use specialized equipment and certainly do not have conversation options. Control of a core character or group of characters is the hallmark of an RPG and what separates it from strategy games. Although the two are related, like I would classify Call of Duty and Devil May Cry as both action games, they are different genres of action games.

This isn't to say your definition of RPG, or RPG combat, or whatever, is wrong. It's not a bad definition. You've probably thought about it far more than I have. It's simply to point out that I believe it's a little unfair to act as though other definitions - with the same sorts of benefits and flaws as yours - are bad.

The flaw of using the word RPG for anything that involves dialogue and leveling is that the term becomes worthless. The flaw with my definition is that it not many games fall under its category. That's definitelt a flaw, but it's not the same sort of flaw (or benefit).

Ideally, RPG should just become a suffix, the tail end of another descriptor.

Dragon Age Origins is a party-based RTwP combat system with a full spectrum character creator and divergent, silent PC, cinematic dialogue options RPG. Skyrim is a single-character-based Real Time combat system with a full spectrum character creator and linear, silent PC, non-cinematic dialogue options RPG. The Witcher is a single-character-based Real Time combat system with a set protagonist and divergent, voiced PC, cinematic dialogue options RPG.


Those doesn't really roll off the tongue. But they explain what the game is better than a dozen professional reviews of each game.

[Jorji Costava]

False positives are probably going to exist for pretty much any attempt to classify genre. You point out that leveling up and plot choices exist in CoD games, but nobody calls them RPGs. Fair enough, but how do you differentiate your own definition of RPG combat from the sorts of turn-based war and 'strategy' games that you highlight as progenitors of PnP RPGs? Nobody refers to the likes of Advance Wars or Civilization V as role-playing games, as far as I'm aware, despite the same formula of statistically determined combat, skill progression, some RNG, and no twitch; Fire Emblem is more often described as having RPG elements but clearly the demarcation line isn't all that stark. And, to take a different tack, whither RPGs with no combat?

 

This reminded me of Wittgenstein's discussion of 'cluster concepts'; a cluster concept is one for which you can't specify precise criteria for its application; rather, it's defined by a weighted list of attributes. If you possess enough of them, and to enough of a degree, then you qualify. Suppose RPG is a cluster concept; then, there's a weighted list of criteria a game has to meet to be an RPG (i.e. dialogue mechanics, leveling, turn-based combat, inventory management, etc.). But there's no one or two of those things that every RPG has to have, leaving open the possibility that two or more games will both qualify while having little to nothing in common with each other, which would explain why debates about whether or not this or that game is an RPG are bound to be endless. Lastly, it's also worth noting that Wittgenstein's paradigm for a cluster concept was "game."

 

Strategy games rarely use characters, but rather nondescript units. In addition, they usually do not level up, do not use specialized equipment and certainly do not have conversation options. Control of a core character or group of characters is the hallmark of an RPG and what separates it from strategy games. Although the two are related, like I would classify Call of Duty and Devil May Cry as both action games, they are different genres of action games.

 

For whatever it's worth, the Jagged Alliance games have you take control of characters who have distinctive personalities (a lot of the mercenaries you hire won't work with other mercenaries they don't like, some disobey or forget orders because they're psychotic or idiotic or both, etc.) skills that can increase as the game goes on. The game even has some limited dialogue mechanics. Nonetheless, they're typically classified as turn-based strategy/tactics games (classified under "Strategy" on GOG).

[Fast Jimmy]

This reminded me of Wittgenstein's discussion of 'cluster concepts'; a cluster concept is one for which you can't specify precise criteria for its application; rather, it's defined by a weighted list of attributes. If you possess enough of them, and to enough of a degree, then you qualify. Suppose RPG is a cluster concept; then, there's a weighted list of criteria a game has to meet to be an RPG (i.e. dialogue mechanics, leveling, turn-based combat, inventory management, etc.). But there's no one or two of those things that every RPG has to have, leaving open the possibility that two or more games will both qualify while having little to nothing in common with each other, which would explain why debates about whether or not this or that game is an RPG are bound to be endless. Lastly, it's also worth noting that Wittgenstein's paradigm for a cluster concept was "game."

By this cluster paradigm, it falls apart VERY quickly when the weighting doesn't just look at the presence of mechanics, but also their volume. Black Ops 2 has a small handful of conversation options and divergent story lines. That means it has the same features as The Witcher 2.

You can see how that would be problematic.

Then again, if you judge by volume, you suddenly run into the problem of a possible down-the-line issue of developers boosting the volume of such things just to qualify for a certain category.

For whatever it's worth, the Jagged Alliance games have you take control of characters who have distinctive personalities (a lot of the mercenaries you hire won't work with other mercenaries they don't like, some disobey or forget orders because they're psychotic or idiotic or both, etc.) skills that can increase as the game goes on. The game even has some limited dialogue mechanics. Nonetheless, they're typically classified as turn-based strategy/tactics games (classified under "Strategy" on GOG).

I'm not saying anyone (including GOG)!agrees with my classification, so mentioning a game that meets most of my criteria and pointing out it is classified differently doesn't do much to convince me. In terms of pure gameplay mechanics, I would list JA2 as an RPG. If there were more non-combat sections with NPC dialogue, I have little doubt it would have been classified as an RPG, which seems like an arbitrary line of distinction.

[Jorji Costava]

By this cluster paradigm, it falls apart VERY quickly when the weighting doesn't just look at the presence of mechanics, but also their volume. Black Ops 2 has a small handful of conversation options and divergent story lines. That means it has the same features as The Witcher 2.

You can see how that would be problematic.

Then again, if you judge by volume, you suddenly run into the problem of a possible down-the-line issue of developers boosting the volume of such things just to qualify for a certain category.

I'm not quite sure how you mean to be disagreeing with me here. Suppose that there are six criteria for being an RPG labed A-F. On the cluster theory, one game could have A and B to an extremely high a degree, a little bit of D, and almost none of C, E & F, and that might be enough to earn it the label of RPG. Another game may have none of A, very little of B, but a heck of a lot of D, C, E and F, and that could be enough to make it an RPG. These two games will have almost nothing in common with each other, but both will be RPGs. I don't see how the Black Ops example challenges this theory. It seems to me that on the cluster theory, Black Ops wouldn't be an RPG, which is the intuitively correct result.
 
As far as your last point, it might very well be true, but I don't think it's the job of a theory of concepts to guide the business decisions of gaming corporations. Its job is to explain linguistic phenomena as regards the use of concepts like "RPG."
 

I'm not saying anyone (including GOG)!agrees with my classification, so mentioning a game that meets most of my criteria and pointing out it is classified differently doesn't do much to convince me. In terms of pure gameplay mechanics, I would list JA2 as an RPG. If there were more non-combat sections with NPC dialogue, I have little doubt it would have been classified as an RPG, which seems like an arbitrary line of distinction.

I doubt there's a non-arbitrary distinction to be drawn here; such is the way with vague concepts. Can you specify the exact minimum number of hairs necessary for someone not to qualify as 'bald?' I suspect it's the same way with the minimum amount of dialogue or NPC interaction necessary for a game to be an RPG instead of a strategy game.