125 réponses à ce sujet

[Nimlowyn]

I've been thinking about this in relation to the OP but, is combat necessary in an RPG? This may actually be what the Tell Tale GoT is, but conceptually I'd be on board with a politically-based game that largely revolves around using dialogue, alliances and betrayals and the ability to define a blank slate PC's personality to some extent as an RPG. I think I zeroed in on builds because historically that is what D&D and RPGs have focused on, but I'm not sure it's necessary for an RPG to have such.

Interesting, I overlooked builds!

 

You raise a good question (and an interesting concept with a politically based game; so your build could be less about your constitution, strength, etc, but more like cunning, public speaking, etc). We may be moving in a direction where combat isn't integral to an RPG, if we aren't there already. My go-to used to be "RPGs tell a sophisticated story" but that doesn't hold anymore. For example, Last of Us is considered action-adventure, not an RPG, but has a story I've heard described at a Ted Talk as worthy of literature (haven't played it as survival horror isn't my thing, but researched it a bit for a project). So if not story, is it combat? If not combat, is it character creation? If not character creation is it....honestly I don't have the answer. 

 

I remember some noise a few years ago when Final Fantasy moved away from the standard lined up, turn based combat (which was, interestingly, inspired by American football) to a more real time, "action oriented" system. Some people were very upset, insisting it wasn't an RPG anymore. Thing is, with advancing graphics and engines, wouldn't two lines of foes on opposites side of the screen taking turns hitting each other look and feel totally ridiculous? 

 

Video games as a medium are rapidly evolving (for the better, in my view) and I think genres should adapt to the games more than games should adapt to the genres.The problem with genre names is that they are static and confining. I think as video games advance, and particularly as all kinds of games get more sophisticated in their story telling, these genres and definitions will have to become more fluid. Personally, it's incredible to me that I don't even know what constitutes my favorite video game genre anymore. Really makes me think we need a new one.

[AdamJames]

I'm very much interested in whether the game in question is fun to play, and less so in how to categorize it.

[Riven326]

It's a "go here and fetch this for me" kind of game.

[Icy Magebane]

All of the JRPGs I've played give you some choice every so often, like in FFX when Tidus could tell Lulu that he was more interested in women like her than Yuna.

 

That is one of like 4 times where you can choose dialogue but it is enough to help me with my definition. 

 

Even if that dialogue choice doesn't matter in terms of the game, Yuna & Tidus kiss in a lake regardless of what you say, it's still a dialogue choice, even if it's only a small one.

 

Though I do get where you are coming from.

It depends on the game, but yeah, some JRPGs are more flexible and offer more illusion of choice than others... I remember a section in the original Suikoden where I could tell right away that somebody was attempting to poison my character, but no matter how many times I said I didn't want any tea, the game kept asking me until I agreed to it... lol.  Since it was impossible to progress after selecting the "wrong" dialogue choice, the choice had zero value... not even as an illusion.  And this was not an isolated incident in that game.  Even though Suikoden flatly refused to allow me to think and play as a remotely clever hero, I don't think that this negated all of the other qualities that made it an RPG.  To the game's credit, it did allow some flexibility with regard to things that didn't significantly alter the main plot, such as allowing the player to refuse to hire certain party members... so I guess there was a small amount of roleplaying in that you could be a stubborn hero or a forgiving one.

 

So, my overall view is that while dialogue choices and branching storylines can enrich an RPG, they are merely one defining characteristic of the genre rather than a necessity. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Personally though I would define an RPG as follows

A game where I can choose dialogue options for a character, where there are different possible outcomes of the game or of individual quests (either via different character outcomes or story outcomes) and where I must maintain that character via amour, leveling etc

I don't think those are sufficient, nor do I think they are all necessary.

But then, I don't think the Final Fantasy games are roleplaying games. They might meet your definition, but they don't meet mine.

I think we need to remember that RPG stands for roleplaying game. The core gameplay should be roleplaying, which is an activity conducted entirely while in character.

[DragonKingReborn]

I don't think those are sufficient, nor do I think they are all necessary.
But then, I don't think the Final Fantasy games are roleplaying games. They might meet your definition, but they don't meet mine.
I think we need to remember that RPG stands for roleplaying game. The core gameplay should be roleplaying, which is an activity conducted entirely while in character.

Do you require that the role be a blank slate that you can craft entirely? Or do you consider the Witcher or Batman: Arkham games to meet the criteria of being able to play a role? (Irrespective of whether or not you enjoyed those games).

[AlanC9]

Thing is, with advancing graphics and engines, wouldn't two lines of foes on opposites side of the screen taking turns hitting each other look and feel totally ridiculous? 

Anyone else remember the phrase "Flintstones boxing"?

Let me toss another one into the mix. Crusader Kings: RPG or not?

[DragonKingReborn]

The problem with the term "role" is that it can be given a very, very wide net to cast. I can role play the Inquisitor or The Warden. I can role play Geralt or Batman. I can role play an immortal emperor/king/president in Civilization. I can role play a football manager in, um, Football Manager. Where does the line get drawn? Can one be drawn? Is pac man role playing?

In the end, people tend to argue positions that suit their views (which is perfectly sensible), but when opposing views meet, there is so little middle ground that the debate almost inevitably devolves into mudslinging.

[CronoDragoon]

In the end, people tend to argue positions that suit their views (which is perfectly sensible), but when opposing views meet, there is so little middle ground that the debate almost inevitably devolves into mudslinging.

 

Not to get a little impatient, but this is exactly why I phrased the OP as I did. I'm trying to put my money where my mouth is and start a good faith debate about what an RPG is and whether DA: I qualifies without an agenda about whether or not I like DA: I or even whether or not I like RPGs.

[DragonKingReborn]

Not to get a little impatient, but this is exactly why I phrased the OP as I did. I'm trying to put my money where my mouth is and start a good faith debate about what an RPG is and whether DA: I qualifies without an agenda about whether or not I like DA: I or even whether or not I like RPGs.

Which I'm pretty sure I addressed in the first part of the post you quoted....

I think by any measure Inquisition is a role playing game, but until a consensus is reached on what defines such a thing, how can we really have a discussion about if it is or isn't? I would like to have the discussion you outline in the OP, but if someone says it means Baldurs Gate and nothing less, and another persons says it means controlling one character that "has a name", how do we proceed? Do we split off into separate discussions?

I promise I'm not trying to derail the thread, I just think for a fair discussion there needs to be a reasonable expectation of something approaching an achievable middle ground.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Read your post in the other thread but replying here.

 

To quote the wiki-definition: 

 

A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game^[1][2]) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.^[3] Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.^[4]

 

The question is rather if something is a "true" RPG or "Too which degree is this a successful roleplaying game?".

 

However this is why so many games not considered RPGs from purists, are still named RPGs. Because it is too easy to call something an RPG. Create a shooter game where action and combat is 99% of the gameplay, BUT, add the choice to do some things differently and let you play it as different classes - and suddenly its an rpg. Dragon Age Inquisition is in my opinion an action adventure game with RPG elements, while the first Dragon Age game is a real RPG.

 

Purists like myself expect "real"/True RPGs to be much deeper on consequence and acting your character and give more meaningful decisions and consequences.

 

Edit: To answer your actual question, DA:I *is* a RPG, but the RPG elements are poorly designed and if we were to grade an RPG from 1-10 in being a bad to good RPG, Inquisition will fall short - I'd say 3/10. Again the problem is that it is too easy to fall into the parameters of being called an RPG in itself. Inquisition is actually a prime example.

 

 

To quote myself from the other thread.This is what *I* consider to be the definition of a "proper" RPG, in which case Dragon Age Inquisition FAILS to deliver a good role-playing experience unless you play a very specific character which is in line with Bioware's creation.

 

RPGs should allow a wide variety of choices that includes the full range of the morality spectrum through actual action and consequence.
Where actions are not allowed or restricted, dialogue should let you reveal your characters intent in this spectrum to satisfy the player in reaching his core-personality in which he/she is roleplaying.

 

DA:I problem: Both in action + consequence and in dialogue, your character is extremely linear and one dimensional without any real depth. Stripping away large parts of the meat of what can be considered a role-playing game until only the bones remain - which in this case is not our character but Bioware's Inquisitor.

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

So to nest that up... DAI is a fantastic game. But a horrible RPG. 

I don't think someone can honestly claim otherwise. 

Try to dissolve or destroy the chantry. 
Try to RP a Tevinter loyalist, or a slaver.
Try to do something big like use your mark to enter the black city.
Try to be an anti-hero or a self-serving opportunist. 

Now... if you want to roleplay a "good" character you might get satisfied. But lets face it. DA:I imposes so many restrictions and so few actual choices both in action and dialogue, that if you try to role-play anything other than the very, very narrow path Bioware wanted the Inquisitor to be - you won't be satisfied. 

For anyone wanting to roleplay a darker Inquisitor, you can not do it. You literally can not do it due to all dialogue in the game being neutral at best. Hell, I'm playing through a game right now with the intent to see if approval rating actually matters. I'm deliberately trying to make everyone hate me or leave but I can't. 

 

I stand by my opinion that as a game, DAI is a success. But as an RPG? A stunning failure. I've said it again and saying it once more because if you think about it you know it is true.

In Dragon Age, you play your warden.
In Dragon Age Inquisition, you play Bioware's Inquisitor. 

[leaguer of one]

Try to dissolve or destroy the chantry. 
 

*Put a negative approved Vivi as divine.

*Or put a Lile with no closer as Divine.

Done.

 

Try to RP a Tevinter loyalist, or a slaver.
 

You can't even do that with DAO's. Grasping straws.

 

Try to do something big like use your mark to enter the black city.
 

*Looks at what happen to Cory when he did it the first time.

*Looks at fact you need massive magical power and the anchor to do that.

Try to be an anti-hero or a self-serving opportunist. 

 

*Conscript Mages, Templers, and has the powers of Orlais under the inquisitor thumb.

Done.

 

Sound like you just want to make the world burn...Not the point of this game.

[Gothfather]

On the heels of the disaster of the other thread, I'd like to propose a thread wherein we actually discuss what an RPG is, and whether DA: I fits the criteria. I'd appreciate it if we could try and frame the discussion in a way wherein a necessary condition(s) for an RPG is listed, and an examination of whether DA: I fits the bill. It doesn't mean "here's something that's in a lot of RPGs and DAI sucks."

 

(Oh, and if you already have a sufficient set of conditions, go for it)

 

On the heels of my debate with SomeoneStoleMyName, I'd like to propose one condition in rough form so we can maybe refine it:

 

An RPG is a game that provides the framework to express different types of characters within the player-character.

 

The phrase "type" here is vague. What I want the phrase to mean is that through dialogue or action, the game provides different avenues of "progression" either through a conversation, quest, or otherwise. A game that only provides one way to proceed through a conversation (ie, no input from the player) AND one way to proceed through the quest/mission structure is not an RPG. The interesting part there is whether a game that provides one or the other is an RPG.

 

DA: I does both, in my opinion, whether it does them satisfactorily or not. Certainly there are multiple avenues of progressing through a conversation, in a way that allows you to consistently maintain a character. It also provides multiple avenues of completion through the content, though this usually takes the form of what kind of build you make, less so alternate ways to complete a quest than combat.

 

Suggestions?

 

This is pseudo intellectualism does nothing but divide the community. It strokes people's ego and lets the "I hate DA:I" have yet ANOTHER soapbox. You might just as well ask if Call of Duty is a FPS.

 

When you pull away all the BS, it comes down to just one thing. Some people can't handle that the game they don't like is vastly well liked in comparison to significantly outnumbered minority that doesn't like it. And because a even smaller portion of the people who don't like the game can't handle that their SUBJECTIVE opinion is not share by a majority get their panties in a bunch and go out of their way to attack and belittle and bemoan DA:I.

 

Well guess what? Subjective opinions do not require any justification nor consensus. I hate WoW as an MMO but i am in a huge minority of MMO players. WoW has had more subscribers than the rest of MMO  community combined. I have no problem saying that i just don't like the game. I don't think it is a bad game I don't think its poorly designed i just don't like it. i don't need to convince the entire world that my SUBJECTIVE opinion is "right.' because it isn't "right." Subjective opinions are neither right nor wrong.

 

I've played many an RPG and some i like and some i don't like. I've played RPGs going all the way back to zork, i have no illusions of nostalgia with RPGs or illusions that all RPGs must be all things to all people. I can accept that some RPGs I have wanted to like i just don't. I wanted to like the witcher 2 but i didn't, I wanted to like Guild wars 2 but didn't and I wanted to like Divinity original Sin but didn't. I don't need to pan these games claim they are shite games. i can accept that it wasn't some BS refined taste on my part that allowed me to realise these games were inferior. i didn't like them because SUBJECTIVELY they didn't work for me. Yet Huge numbers of people loved them. I'm a huge witcher fan i really, really, wanted to like the Witcher 2 but I didn't. I was MATURE enough to just accept that sometimes you don't like something and no one is at fault.

 

Gamers have to stop being so childish and lashing out just because they don't like something. By all means critique those features you don't like but stop this crusade to persuade the world that there is a right or wrong answer to subjective opinions. Because this is at the heart of the debate of "is DA:I an RPG or not?"

[AlanC9]

This is pseudo intellectualism does nothing but divide the community.

Pseudo? Are you sure CronoDragoon isn't the real thing?

And as for dividing the community, my impression is that we're already divided.

[Shechinah]

I see nothing wrong with ChronoDragoon's proposal about such a thread and it might even be an interesting read as long as it does not become a case of reductive reasoning.  

 

The Bioware forums are always going to be a place of divisive opinions but that is not necessarily a bad thing as it promotes discussions and as long as whatever hostility might be does not bleed into every topic.  

[Al Foley]

So to nest that up... DAI is a fantastic game. But a horrible RPG. 

I don't think someone can honestly claim otherwise. 

Try to dissolve or destroy the chantry. 
Try to RP a Tevinter loyalist, or a slaver.
Try to do something big like use your mark to enter the black city.
Try to be an anti-hero or a self-serving opportunist. 

Now... if you want to roleplay a "good" character you might get satisfied. But lets face it. DA:I imposes so many restrictions and so few actual choices both in action and dialogue, that if you try to role-play anything other than the very, very narrow path Bioware wanted the Inquisitor to be - you won't be satisfied. 

For anyone wanting to roleplay a darker Inquisitor, you can not do it. You literally can not do it due to all dialogue in the game being neutral at best. Hell, I'm playing through a game right now with the intent to see if approval rating actually matters. I'm deliberately trying to make everyone hate me or leave but I can't. 

 

I stand by my opinion that as a game, DAI is a success. But as an RPG? A stunning failure. I've said it again and saying it once more because if you think about it you know it is true.

In Dragon Age, you play your warden.
In Dragon Age Inquisition, you play Bioware's Inquisitor. 

I thought that my Inquisitor was funny, charming, awkward, thoughtful.  Diplomatic, yet forceful when he wanted to be, and had a subtle wit about him and a deep caring.  If your Inquisitor wasn't exactly like mine it kind of disproves this statement. 

[Lebanese Dude]

 

In Dragon Age, you play your warden.
In Dragon Age Inquisition, you play Bioware's Inquisitor. 

Um the only games that ever allow you to play your own character completely are sandboxes that lack depth in their plot narratives like TES games. They provide you a structure and you're free to do as you wish with few limits.

 

Any game with a deep narrative framework requires the enforcement of certain boundaries to your character in order to advance the story in a certain manner.

 

Even your Warden could not do whatever they wanted. Claiming otherwise is wrong.

 

You always have to join the Wardens.

You always have to be the lead.

You always have to drink the taint.

You still had to end the Blight.

You still had to go to the same areas.

You always had to resolve the main plotlines.

You always had to recruit Alistair.

You always had to do the Landsmeet.

etc...

 

This is no different than DAI really. You're always playing BioWare's character.

 

If you intend to say that DAO allows you to play your own character in terms of personality, then it's important to note that each game has its own advantages and disadvantages in that regard.

 

DAO allows you to headcanon your own Warden's personality more easily due to the lack of a voiced protagonist, while DAI allows you to experience your character's personality more thoroughly. 

 

DAO allows you to play caricatures like insane douchebags much more effectively, while DAI makes that somewhat impossible by making your characters more grounded and as a result more believable as a protagonist. 

 

etc...

 

Ultimately, both games have preset dialogue options.

The thing is, DAI allows you to roleplay your character's motivations much more readily than DAO. DAO gives you one or two lines at Flemeth's hut in the beginning to railroad you into joining the Wardens and after that you're a loyal Warden through and through except with a few discussion options with some companions. If you're a human you have some extra options at the Landsmeet to "alter" your course. You always end up being Warden Commander if you didn't sacrifice yourself. Where's the freedom there?

 

Meanwhile DAI gives you the option to discuss matters from faith to dedication to the cause throughout the game from the beginning to end and they have an actual impact on the setting (Divine, Inquisition flavor, etc..).

 

Honestly I have yet to see a convincing argument on why DAI doesn't qualify to be an RPG. You're roleplaying the Inquisitor as well as the organization as a whole. 

 

Expecting that any modern RPG allow you to roleplay in every conceivable manner while maintaining depth in the narrative is naive. 

[Dieb]

With terms like "roguelike", "metroidvania", "sandbox" etc. become more and more common terms, I think it's about time we check what's really left under the dusk of original video game characterization.

 

Do we need this classification at all? It gets harder and harder to define things -defeating the original purpose-, so all I really care for these days being a long time RPG fan, is "does it have story driven gameplay" and "is it immersive"? Some RPGs don't use stats anymore, every other shooter has "RPG elements", Mass Effect has shooter "elements", and "ARPG" is becoming a legitimate genre. Because- why exactly? It has more action? Real time combat? No party?

 

I think it's about time we either broaden the parameters or can the concept altogether.

 

Maybe that's just the musician ranting, but subgenres and their definiton are editorial inventions, not creative ones.

[Lebanese Dude]

"does it have story driven gameplay" and "is it immersive"? 

 

Exactly, although this can be applied to most story-driven games.

 

What makes RPGs different is that they allow you to alter the character you're playing in some way.

The amount and style of roleplaying may vary, but it's still an RPG in any case.

[TevinterSupremacist]

What makes RPGs different is that they allow you to alter the character you're playing in some way.

The amount and style of roleplaying may vary, but it's still an RPG in any case.

No, if throughout the game you only get, let's say one single choice and everything else is completely set in stone , I believe we can agree it's not an RPG. Obviously, an RPG doesn't have to let you to modify everything fully. At this point, it's a matter of quantifying and seeing at what number or what percentage of choice-based events vs non-choice based events or at what degree of character alteration should the line be drawn.

But it's not as simple as [choice took place] -> [rpg]. If at the end of tomb raider you get the chance to kill or spare the villain, it still wouldn't be an rpg. If in the upcoming gta, at the start of the game you were asked if your character had an affinity for shotguns or machine guns and got a small bonus through the game based on the choice, but everything else was like every other gta, it'd still wouldn't be an rpg. Existence of choice or character alteration alone are not enough.

[Dieb]

If in the upcoming gta, at the start of the game you were asked if your character had an affinity for shotguns or machine guns and got a small bonus through the game based on the choice, but everything else was like every other gta, it'd still wouldn't be an rpg. Existence of choice or character alteration alone are not enough.

 

I highly disagree. Because as far as I'm concerned as someone who does not enjoy playing shooters etc. and clearly favours "RPG"s, Grand Theft Auto V fulfills every checkpoint, except magic swords or lasers, to be a present day set RPG. The Online mode in particular.

 

I know it's not chic for RPG gamers to say stuff like that, but the specs are all there.

[k1rage]

I dont see how its anything other than an RPG

 

not if its a good RPG or not is up for debate but its definitely a RPG

[Sylvius the Mad]

Do you require that the role be a blank slate that you can craft entirely? Or do you consider the Witcher or Batman: Arkham games to meet the criteria of being able to play a role? (Irrespective of whether or not you enjoyed those games).

I wouldn't say that a blank slate is required. In fact, given the constraints of CRPG design, I don't think we could ever actually get a properly blank slate.

But, I do think that we should be in direct control of the character's state of mind. How he interpret what he sees. What his objectives are. How he feels. What he says and does We might be choosing from a list, but it shouldn't be chosen for us.

Of the games you mention, I have only played The Witcher (and not much of it, because the combat was among the worst I've seen), but the dialogue there certainly seemed to permit roleplaying.

But a game like Final Fantasy VII, where dialogue consists primarily of you advancing through conversations with no meaningful input, fails horribly.

But it's not all about dialogue. A game can permit roleplaying through actions as well. This is something Mass Effect does vastly better than Mass Effect 2 does. And DAO does better than DA2. Designing combat and environments in such a way that the player gets to decide how to approach problems turns combat amd exploration into roleplaying events. But offering linear environments with severe constraints on combat (preventing you from initiating combat, or closing doors behind you to restrict access to ammo, or forcing you always to approach an encounter in a specific way) is anti-roleplaying.