583 réponses à ce sujet

[katokires]

Not sure why I bother, but eh.

 

First, cut out the personal attacks. There's really no need to call anyone cowards over their preference in video games.

 

Second, as someone with an autistic brother, I ask you to stop using ''retarded'' in such a casual manner. This isn't 4chan.

 

Third, to actually answer my point, does this mean that XCOM, Company of Heroes, World of Warcraft and FTL are automatically RPGs because they have a To Hit mechanic?

 

Fourth, I am not a tabletop expert, but I understand that D&D is far from the only one in existence, that others may easily have drastically different gameplay mechanics, and that people play tabletop for a variety of reasons. Some might prefer gameplay, others story, and others to just be with their friends.

 

Fifth, to use your Sonic example, when could you take control of Sonic and give him motivations, backstory, emotions, etc. via actions or dialog options? Side activities exist in every single genre. RPGs are special in that they link it to the story in a way others don't. Alternate endings are just the tip of the iceberg of what sidequests in RPGs can offer. Sonic's interactions with the setting also limit themselves to jumping on bad people and avoiding obstacles.

 

Your definitions simply don't hold up to reality, and based on your rude and/or hyperbolic comments, I suspect that I am spot on that you are less interested in defining what is an RPG than in saying Inquisition is a bad game because it doesn't fit your own idea of an RPG.

First, yes those games are automatically RPGs, I never played but if to hit is governed by stats it is the very definition of RPGs. I mean, if no player skill or other controls are involved of course. It is simple, if it is like DnD where you have to hit and enemy have AC and you pick a random number and this says if you hit or not, it is RPG regardless of being a soccer game or a dressign game, SERIOUSLY. Deadly serious.

At Sonic, you just described Inquisition for me, no connection of side quests to main story, jumping on bad people and avoiding obstacles. You really made my day with that.

No I am totally honest on what is RPG for me. And happily I have friends that share this with me, we laugh at GM attempts to create interesting stories and plan our next amazing builds. This is RPG. To give a more precise definition here is what RPG is: STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA with actions, skills and feats depending on those. The end. And they lived happily ever after. You can cut the story and interactive world bullshit. I created modules on NWN1 and NWN2 with empty rooms just to test my builds, best RPG experience I had in my life, with no need of dumb dialogues and boring worlds.

[Lilithor]

Translation:

 

I don't have a response to your point so I'm going to take my ball and go home.

Actually it is pretty easy to explain I just didn't think people could be this... erm... *censored*

I would need to explain separatly but I'm not in the mood for in depth explanation so I will just break down into two categories, it should provide the answer you need:
1 - Gameplay wise - What I consider RPG is a game ruled by stats. If it is not completely ruled by stats + random it is not RPG. So yes Diablo is A LOT more RPG than Skyrim or Inquisition. If I had the desire to play RPG I certainly wouldn't play Skyrim, or Inquisition. My joy in RPGs, when it comes to gameplay involves building  character and tactically coordinating them, I would'nt even call it playing a game. So many games from other genres would fit RPG better than The Witcher for instance.
2 - General definition - RPG is a game with an interesting story that let me tell my own interesting story. In this definition DAI is RPG and Diablo is not. Edit: Also a lot of games from other genre fits this role like The Sims.

See, simple. I'm just not good with people that are *censored*

[leaguer of one]

Actually it is pretty easy to explain I just didn't think people could be this... erm... *censored*

I would need to explain separatly but I'm not in the mood for in depth explanation so I will just break down into two categories, it should provide the answer you need:
1 - Gameplay wise - What I consider RPG is a game ruled by stats. If it is not completely ruled by stats + random it is not RPG. So yes Diablo is A LOT more RPG than Skyrim or Inquisition. If I had the desire to play RPG I certainly wouldn't play Skyrim, or Inquisition. My joy in RPGs, when it comes to gameplay involves building  character and tactically coordinating them, I would'nt even call it playing a game. So many games from other genres would fit RPG better than The Witcher for instance.
2 - General definition - RPG is games with an interesting story that let me tell my own interesting story. In this definition DAI is RPG and Diablo is not. Edit: Also a lot of games from other genre fits this role like The Sims.

See, simple. I'm just not good with people that are *censored*

But stats do effect what happens in the game. And stats don't matter. It an issue of translation. Rpg's of old used stats and dice rolls because it was the only way to interact with the games world, characters, and pc's. Game of today don't need that translation because we have more way to connect to the games world, characters, and pc. That why we have action rpgs now more then ever.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Actually it is pretty easy to explain I just didn't think people could be this... erm... *censored*

I would need to explain separatly but I'm not in the mood for in depth explanation so I will just break down into two categories, it should provide the answer you need:
1 - Gameplay wise - What I consider RPG is a game ruled by stats. If it is not completely ruled by stats + random it is not RPG. So yes Diablo is A LOT more RPG than Skyrim or Inquisition. If I had the desire to play RPG I certainly wouldn't play Skyrim, or Inquisition. My joy in RPGs, when it comes to gameplay involves building  character and tactically coordinating them, I would'nt even call it playing a game. So many games from other genres would fit RPG better than The Witcher for instance.
2 - General definition - RPG is a game with an interesting story that let me tell my own interesting story. In this definition DAI is RPG and Diablo is not. Edit: Also a lot of games from other genre fits this role like The Sims.

See, simple. I'm just not good with people that are *censored*

 

I just highlighted the crux of the issue.

 

It's what you prefer. Fair enough, no problem. But that doesn't mean that games that do not fit said preferences are automatically not RPGs. That's the beginning and the end of this particular debate. 

 

Personally I have no attachement whatsoever to AC, THACO, Defense or whichever other arbitrary number tells me I can hit X monster Y% of times.

 

If RPGs are a combination of stats and roleplaying, Inquisition has stats (I don't care if you think it's dumbed down or whatever, a level 1 character with crap equipment isn't going anywhere, thus stats matter) and roleplaying. If it's only roleplaying, well Inquisition has roleplaying. If it's only stats and To Hit chance, well have fun going to Relic and explaining to them that their semi-competitive WW2 RTS is actually a role-playing game because it has random accuracy numbers for each unit. Maybe sue them for false advertising while we're at it.

 

I now feel I have given this ''topic'' all the attention it deserves and more besides. Good day.

[Lilithor]

But stats do effect what happens in the game. And stats don't matter. It an issue of translation. Rpg's of old used stats and dice rolls because it was the only way to interact with the games world, characters, and pc's. Game of today don't need that translation because we have more way to connect to the games world, characters, and pc. That why we have action rpgs now more then ever.

Completely disagree for a lot of reasons... first being we always had action RPGs.
Second the people that created RPG obviously had joy in dealing with combat in this particular wat, that was and is not a limitation. Dude that is in Sword Coast Legends now that was in DAO said himself that one of the reasons he was out of Bioware was because he believed in tactical gameplay previous games had and that he was not into handling RPG with the combat present in DA2 and the general direction Bioware RPGs were taking.
I get ti from a lot of posts from you that you think this way is better but you are going a little too ahead of yourself saying it was limitation and dismissing that a huge amount of people actually love combat that way. Some people deal better with numbers than action, it is like prefering mathematics over football or Heroes of Might and Magic instead of Age of Empires, not everybody thinks action is above just thinking. But seriously, I don't think you should say these things as facts "RPGs were like that because..." since it is not a fact, for people who stayed in Bioware after DAO it may be true, but it is certainly not for people that left, for people at Obsidian, for people who made Divinity or Wasteland and so on.

[Lilithor]

I just highlighted the crux of the issue.

 

It's what you prefer. Fair enough, no problem. But that doesn't mean that games that do not fit said preferences are automatically not RPGs. That's the beginning and the end of this particular debate. 

 

Personally I have no attachement whatsoever to AC, THACO, Defense or whichever other arbitrary number tells me I can hit X monster Y% of times.

 

If RPGs are a combination of stats and roleplaying, Inquisition has stats (I don't care if you think it's dumbed down or whatever, a level 1 character with crap equipment isn't going anywhere, thus stats matter) and roleplaying. If it's only roleplaying, well Inquisition has roleplaying. If it's only stats and To Hit chance, well have fun going to Relic and explaining to them that their semi-competitive WW2 RTS is actually a role-playing game because it has random accuracy numbers for each unit. Maybe sue them for false advertising while we're at it.

 

I now feel I have given this ''topic'' all the attention it deserves and more besides. Good day.

Stats don't matter when action has relevance, even if partial. So, no, DAI doesn't have stats. It is not about them being there, it is about stats being the decisive factor. I don't want you or anybody else to agree with me, I just can't count action as RPG. Action is action.

My definition of RPG is: (Dragon Age Origins + DLC + Awakening Story, Characters, Locations, Setting, and everything else not in the following items) + (Final Fantasy Tactics War of the Lions Combat) + (DnD 3.5 Stats+Classes+PrestigeClasses+Races+ItemCreationEnchantment+Skills) + (The Sims 4 Character Creator)

If this thing existed it would be RPG for me =)

[leaguer of one]

Completely disagree for a lot of reasons... first being we always had action RPGs.
Second the people that created RPG obviously had joy in dealing with combat in this particular wat, that was and is not a limitation. Dude that is in Sword Coast Legends now that was in DAO said himself that one of the reasons he was out of Bioware was because he believed in tactical gameplay previous games had and that he was not into handling RPG with the combat present in DA2 and the general direction Bioware RPGs were taking.
I get ti from a lot of posts from you that you think this way is better but you are going a little too ahead of yourself saying it was limitation and dismissing that a huge amount of people actually love combat that way. Some people deal better with numbers than action, it is like prefering mathematics over football or Heroes of Might and Magic instead of Age of Empires, not everybody thinks action is above just thinking. But seriously, I don't think you should say these things as facts "RPGs were like that because..." since it is not a fact, for people who stayed in Bioware after DAO it may be true, but it is certainly not for people that left, for people at Obsidian, for people who made Divinity or Wasteland and so on.

Nope. Action rpg only came in the nes generation. Sorry we don't have pen and paper action rpgs unless larping existed around the same time d&d was around. Sorry, but everything you like about stats in p&p rpgs was because you could not actually swig anything around and hit any thing  in your living room to simulate it in real life. It only their for translation and nothing more. It's not truly need and it only held up by traditionalist. Stats is only their because it was the best way to decide how you going to dodge an attack in a board game.

[phantomrachie]

Completely disagree for a lot of reasons... first being we always had action RPGs.
Second the people that created RPG obviously had joy in dealing with combat in this particular wat, that was and is not a limitation. Dude that is in Sword Coast Legends now that was in DAO said himself that one of the reasons he was out of Bioware was because he believed in tactical gameplay previous games had and that he was not into handling RPG with the combat present in DA2 and the general direction Bioware RPGs were taking.
I get ti from a lot of posts from you that you think this way is better but you are going a little too ahead of yourself saying it was limitation and dismissing that a huge amount of people actually love combat that way. Some people deal better with numbers than action, it is like prefering mathematics over football or Heroes of Might and Magic instead of Age of Empires, not everybody thinks action is above just thinking. But seriously, I don't think you should say these things as facts "RPGs were like that because..." since it is not a fact, for people who stayed in Bioware after DAO it may be true, but it is certainly not for people that left, for people at Obsidian, for people who made Divinity or Wasteland and so on.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. We've always had ARPGs so they are still not real RPGs?

 

Yes BioWare changed the type of combat it has in DA so what? You like building characters I get that, you like when it is your characters states plus hidden dice rolls that determine the winner in combat ok, but that is not something that all RPGs have.

 

Infact some of the first RPG Video games released in the 80's didn't have this type of combat.

[leaguer of one]

Stats don't matter when action has relevance, even if partial. So, no, DAI doesn't have stats. It is not about them being there, it is about stats being the decisive factor. I don't want you or anybody else to agree with me, I just can't count action as RPG. Action is action.

My definition of RPG is: (Dragon Age Origins + DLC + Awakening Story, Characters, Locations, Setting, and everything else not in the following items) + (Final Fantasy Tactics War of the Lions Combat) + (DnD 3.5 Stats+Classes+PrestigeClasses+Races+ItemCreationEnchantment+Skills) + (The Sims 4 Character Creator)

If this thing existed it would be RPG for me =)

Yes, DAI has stats. How it's used is different for tradition. You have no auto dodge but stats reduce how much the attack effect's your character and how much you attack effect your enemies. That how action rpgs are.

 

Sorry, but your just being too narrow minded.

[phantomrachie]

Stats don't matter when action has relevance, even if partial. So, no, DAI doesn't have stats. It is not about them being there, it is about stats being the decisive factor. I don't want you or anybody else to agree with me, I just can't count action as RPG. Action is action.

My definition of RPG is: (Dragon Age Origins + DLC + Awakening Story, Characters, Locations, Setting, and everything else not in the following items) + (Final Fantasy Tactics War of the Lions Combat) + (DnD 3.5 Stats+Classes+PrestigeClasses+Races+ItemCreationEnchantment+Skills) + (The Sims 4 Character Creator)

If this thing existed it would be RPG for me =)

 

So your definition of an RPG is a game that doesn't exist. Awesome - why are you here exactly? 

[fchopin]

For me DAI is an RPG.

[Lilithor]

So your definition of an RPG is a game that doesn't exist. Awesome - why are you here exactly? 

Because I enjoy things that try to be RPG. I like it better why they try harder like Origins =)

[leaguer of one]

Because I enjoy things that try to be RPG. I like it better why they try harder like Origins =)

Then  you don't know the difference between want an rpg is and what an rpg preference is.

What you list was not what the definition of what rpgs are but what you like to play. Too many times people who go on about what isn't or is an rpg miss that point.

[Lilithor]

Nope. Action rpg only came in the nes generation. Sorry we don't have pen and paper action rpgs unless larping existed around the same time d&d was around. Sorry, but everything you like about stats in p&p rpgs was because you could not actually swig anything around and hit any thing  in your living room to simulate it in real life. It only their for translation and nothing more. It's not truly need and it only held up by traditionalist. Stats is only their because it was the best way to decide how you going to dodge an attack in a board game.

Do you understand that this is your reasoning and that it is impossible that a human being think everybody would prefer if they could swing?
I know people who would prefer drinking poison than swinging a sword...
I am the narrow minded one when you think everybody would prefer to do the things your way? I don't think so.
Actions are tiresome, they spend energy, some people love it, other people hate it. Some people like challenge other people don't. You are worse than narrow minded if you don't understand that there are people who hate action, you are autistic.
I am well aware that both in real life and in games there is a lot of people who like experiencing things first hand, but you seem unable to accept that there a whole lot of humans that just like sitting and thinking, imagining and so on. Not everybody is a warrior, there are wizards too. There are policeman but there are also lawyers.
Do you seriously believe everybody who play RPG would prefer action? (Everybody is a figure of speech since in this very forum there are a lot of people who prefer the old way, also as I pointed a lot of developers too and their games sold a lot for indies/low budget games)

[leaguer of one]

Do you understand that this is your reasoning and that it is impossible that a human being think everybody would prefer if they could swing?
I know people who would prefer drinking poison than swinging a sword...
I am the narrow minded one when you think everybody would prefer to do the things your way? I don't think so.
Actions are tiresome, they spend energy, some people love it, other people hate it. Some people like challenge other people don't. You are worse than narrow minded if you don't understand that there are people who hate action, you are autistic.
I am well aware that both in real life and in games there is a lot of people who like experiencing things first hand, but you seem unable to accept that there a whole lot of humans that just like sitting and thinking, imagining and so on. Not everybody is a warrior, there are wizards too. There are policeman but there are also lawyers.
Do you seriously believe everybody who play RPG would prefer action? (Everybody is a figure of speech since in this very forum there are a lot of people who prefer the old way, also as I pointed a lot of developers too and their games sold a lot for indies/low budget games)

I never assumed anything. Heck, I did not even say what I feel an rpg is yet. I just point out how narrow and stagnate your concept of an rpg is and that it was just a preference not a fact.

It's not that action in rpgs are tiring. It just you don't like them. Nothing is wrong about it. What wrong is you say it's not an rpg if action is in it.  I never said rpgs have to have action in it, I just said action rpgs are rpgs. I'm fine with both the traditional and the modern form of rpgs, i'm just saying it wrong to say an rpg is not an rpg because it does not fit my preferences.

[Lilithor]

I never assumed anything...

 

..Sorry, but everything you like about stats in p&p rpgs was because you could not actually swig anything around and hit any thing  in your living room to simulate it in real life. It only their for translation and nothing more. It's not truly need and it only held up by traditionalist. Stats is only their because it was the best way to decide how you going to dodge an attack in a board game.

LOL WHAT!? You said it pretty clearly.

in case you didn't notice I didn't reply to the post about my preferences, they are my preferences, they can be whatever I want. Unlike you I'm only talking about me while you are stating a fact about other people. So unless you can prove it, stop saying it like as if it was true. While I can say whatever I want about me and my preferences because, surprise, it is up to me. RPG for me is whatever definition I want, period.

Now if you go and say things about other people, like stating that people created RPG that way as if you knew why is ridiculous unless, of course, you prove it. And please, don't mistake reasoning with proofs. And as I said, your reasoning assumes everybody thinks like you and that everybody is like you and not like me.

YOU are the one saying things about other people, I am only talking about myself and as far as I know I am allowed to (not that I would care if I wasn't).

Also at your last post... "Actions are not tiring". Unlike you I am fan of facts. Actions are tiring is a physical, chemical, biological fact. You may or may not feel it depending on the action and you physical conditioning, but you will spend energy anyway and your body will spend resources even if you do not feel tired. In this part I was not talking about games, I was talking about physically swinging a sword since you said that if people had the space to do that they would instead of dealing with stats. To which I replied that a lot of people prefer a character sheet and would never bother with physically swinging a sword because they are not interested in physical activities. I never said that action IN GAMES are tiring, you misread it.

When it comes to games actions you can't say actions are tyring, you also can't say they are not. It is subjective. Thing is that from begining I understand it but you seem to believe you hold the true somehow. Like in phrases "action is just fine", no they are not, and also yes they are, there is no true or false in this. Again I understand that some people love action and others hate you however seem to believe there is clearly a right and wrong here and perhaps thats why you read my posts as a matter of right or wrong instead of a matter of preference. If you bothered with REALLY reading them you would have realized that it is pretty clear that I'm talking about me, I made it pretty clear that I do not require anyone agreeing with me, yet you answer as if I was telling you that I hold the truth.

And I will repeat: Stop talking about using stats being just a translation as if you had talked with the first RPG creators and asked them if they would prefer to swing swords instead of rolling dices. There is reason in it, it is a possibility, but not the only one, unless you are so narrow minded you think everybody thinks like you.

[leaguer of one]

LOL WHAT!? You said it pretty clearly.

in case you didn't notice I didn't reply to the post about my preferences, they are my preferences, they can be whatever I want. Unlike you I'm only talking about me while you are stating a fact about other people. So unless you can prove it, stop saying it like as if it was true. While I can say whatever I want about me and my preferences because, surprise, it is up to me. RPG for me is whatever definition I want, period.

Now if you go and say things about other people, like stating that people created RPG that way as if you knew why is ridiculous unless, of course, you prove it. And please, don't mistake reasoning with proofs. And as I said, your reasoning assumes everybody thinks like you and that everybody is like you and not like me.

YOU are the one saying things about other people, I am only talking about myself and as far as I know I am allowed to (not that I would care if I wasn't).

Also at your last post... "Actions are not tiring". Unlike you I am fan of facts. Actions are tiring is a physical, chemical, biological fact. You may or may not feel it depending on the action and you physical conditioning, but you will spend energy anyway and your body will spend resources even if you do not feel tired. In this part I was not talking about games, I was talking about physically swinging a sword since you said that if people had the space to do that they would instead of dealing with stats. To which I replied that a lot of people prefer a character sheet and would never bother with physically swinging a sword because they are not interested in physical activities. I never said that action IN GAMES are tiring, you misread it.

When it comes to games actions you can't say actions are tyring, you also can't say they are not. It is subjective. Thing is that from begining I understand it but you seem to believe you hold the true somehow. Like in phrases "action is just fine", no they are not, and also yes they are, there is no true or false in this. Again I understand that some people love action and others hate you however seem to believe there is clearly a right and wrong here and perhaps thats why you read my posts as a matter of right or wrong instead of a matter of preference. If you bothered with REALLY reading them you would have realized that it is pretty clear that I'm talking about me, I made it pretty clear that I do not require anyone agreeing with me, yet you answer as if I was telling you that I hold the truth.

And I will repeat: Stop talking about using stats being just a translation as if you had talked with the first RPG creators and asked them if they would prefer to swing swords instead of rolling dices. There is reason in it, it is a possibility, but not the only one, unless you are so narrow minded you think everybody thinks like you.

Did you read What I wrote? I'll make it clear for you since you clearly don't Understand. I said that stats were not need and only there for translation. That in no way means I hate stat based rpgs and they are not valid rpgs. That also does not mean they have to be action rpgs to be good. This is a case you you taking a statement and not fully understand what it means. Stats is just a variable of interaction with rpg, it can be replaced with anything. Hell, it can be replaced with a card game and has so.

https://www.kickstar...architect-cards

http://www.gamefaqs....one excellently

 

Take the time to understand what something means before say what something means, doing that means your going to jump to assumptions.  You clearly did understand my point and assuming my point is something else.

 

And action being tiring is based on perspective and personal taste. Hell, most action games are played at rest.

[Sylvius the Mad]

is GTA an RPG too then?

The earlier ones, sure. The later ones seem a bit too structured and rigid.

Though I should point out that I haven't played a GTA game since they were 2D top-down games.

[BSpud]

Another thread where katokires reduces the great breadth and diversity of tabletop rpgs into one-dimensional, hack-n-slash dungeon crawls which use the terrible D20 system. Yay!

[Poledo]

DA:I is not a role-playing game. If choosing a class/race combo makes it an RPG then team fortress is an RPG too.

Through the entire game I played Bioware's Inquisitor, not my own. 
The Inquisitor is 95% set in stone and projected like Bioware wanted to shape him/her.

 

Forget any big options like using the mark to enter the black city.

Forget dissolving or destroying the chantry.

 

Forget trying to be a dark character in conversation, the game forces you to be a good person with a moral and ethical code. Try to support Tevinter, slavery or agree with the Envy demon. You cant. 

 

Forget  lying and deceiving people.
Forget having mother Giselle executed.
Forget using the inquisition for your own gain. 
Forget any shape or form of machiavellian, darker or "evil" choices like in Origins. 
Forget being an opportunist.
Forget trying to join or replace Corypheus. 

Pretty much: Forget doing anything in this game other than playing Bioware's Inquisitor, because the "white knight in shining armor with the morally upstanding advocate of justice boyscout behavior" is purely a projection of what the Bioware writers wanted their Inquisitor to be. With some small seasoning of player choice for spice, like: "who to romance" / gender / voice actor. 

"Be who you want to be" for DA:I is the fattest lie from Bioware yet. 

Still love Bioware and Dragon age: Inquisition though.  Just wish they could go back to the more dark world they created with actual choices. The Hollywood  / Heroic saviour / boyscoutquisitor they shoved down or throats this time is honestly sickening in its lack of choice. Fortunately they made everything else so good that the game is still very enjoyable. 


 

 

So Final Fantasy, Shining Force, Seventh Saga, Lunar, Wild Arms, Dragon Warrior, Grandia, Star Ocean, etc etc are not RPG's by your definition.

[NextGenCowboy]

You would blaspheme RPGs, the most holy, righteous, and pure of all gaming genres by bringing up something so unclean as Star Ocean? How dare you compare that drivel to the absolute, and utter perfection that is a true RPG! That series isn't fit to stand in the shadow of those precious gems of gaming that are so rare, and brilliant that no major developer has come within miles of building one in the last 15 years. The mere thought that you'd even attempt to compare the two sickens me.

[fchopin]

I love Star Ocean.

[NextGenCowboy]

I was definitely being sarcastic. I also love Star Ocean, and brought it up on the last page, because it's such a difficult game to quantify in terms of RPG. The series breaks so many rules of both Eastern and Western RPGs, but it fits into nearly any category one can come up with.

 

It has: To Hit stats in terms of accuracy, which is measured against an enemy/player's evasion stat. Defense, and magic Defense measured against Attack/M.Def, most of the time these are derrived stats based off of a character/enemy's strength/Luck/Magic etc. In addition to weapon/armor stats, and modifiers for customization.

 

Then in terms of gameplay it's an Action-RPG except it's real-time with pause for item/spell/skill usage. As well as Tactical shifts.

 

In terms of story it's an Eastern RPG with a fixed narrative, but 1/2/3 all have branching paths (2 has two slightly different stories based on your chosen protagonist), and then things can be done out of order skipped, based on character recruitment, and Private Actions/Sidequest choices. So it's a fixed narrative game with multiple branching paths usually, and characters who all can't be recruited in one playthrough.

 

As I said earlier, it's the Platypus of RPGs. That's why the genre is so hard to define. To me at least, when some people get so up in arms about what an RPG is, it really comes off like my post above. No one's ruining everything you stand for by calling a game like Star Ocean an RPG, classic RPG games aren't the cure for cancer, to be held up as the pinnacle of all that's right with the world, and everything else, trash to be scoffed at. Someone may enjoy those classic RPGs that are closer to Pen and Paper, and if you do, awesome, but you can't define a genre based on one single perception of what you like. It's also annoying when anyone's looked down on for daring to compare something like Star Ocean to that, especially given their likely shared origins in Wizardry (as brought up before) which tri-Ace (SO's developers) have said was a major influence on them.

 

Edit: Not just Star Ocean either, I adore tri-Ace.

[Farangbaa]

Real RPGs are played in the bedroom.

[Al Foley]

Real RPGs are played in the bedroom.

"Oh no big templar man what are you going to do with that sword!"