125 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

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?"

 

I can only assume since you quoted me that this is in response to me. If it's not, let me know.

 

Here's my response: you clearly did not read the OP and I'm a bit embarrassed for you. If you have nothing to add to an actual discussion of the definition of RPG and whether DA: I fits, feel free to pass the thread by. This thread is not for whether someone likes DA: I or RPGs or not.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

I roleplay in all games. I roleplay in Football Manager. But that I can roleplay in it does not itself make it a roleplaying game.

It is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

I would count Crusader Kings as a roleplaying game, though.

[TevinterSupremacist]

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.

Have you considered the fact that the statements:

a)I don't like shooters

b)I like RPGs

c)I like gta

d)gta is not an rpg

can simultaneously be correct? They are true for me too, gta has something that many rpgs have and that I find particularly enjoyable, the "go forth and do as you please" element. But just because it's common in rpgs, it doesn't make it a defining rpg trait. Just like most rpgs have inventory systems, it doesn't mean that any game with an inventory system is an rpg.

 

Disclaimer: I haven't played the online mode for gta, only talking for single player.

Also, obviously gta was just an example in my post, the point was something else, not whether gta is an rpg or not.

Which it isn't. For crying out loud.

[CronoDragoon]

Also, obviously gta was just an example in my post, the point was something else, not whether gta is an rpg or not.

Which it isn't. For crying out loud.

 

Okay, so what are the necessary components of an RPG?

[Lebanese Dude]

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.

 

Why are you using an extreme situation to justify your point?

 

ME lets you drive a vehicle. Does that make it a racing game? Of course not.

FIFA allows you to play Career Mode. Does that make it an RPG? Doubtful.
 

---

 

 

It's just mindboggling that people are even attempting to debate whether DAI is an RPG or not.

 

It allows you to do many things to play a role.

 

1) Customize a unique protagonist

2) Choose dialogue according to your chosen personality, motivations, and goals.

3) Communicate with characters and develop appropriate relationships and rivalries.

4) Pick combat skills, abilities, and approaches that match your character's style

5) Navigate the story-driven plot via choices of varying import and branching potential.

6) Perform strategic decisions through different approaches via the war table.

etc..etc..

 

All minor details are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

For example, are people seriously going to argue that a "good RPG" like DAO allowed better roleplaying by forcing characters to always invest in a certain attribute if they want to develop their skills efficiently?

 

Irrational.

 

By all means, argue whether DAI is a traditional RPG or not or whether it's an action RPG or whatever.

 

Just don't claim that DAI isn't an RPG. It's pointless.

[TevinterSupremacist]

<snip>

Where did I say anything about DA I being an rpg or not?

 

My post was simply in response to your earlier comment

 

"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."

 

which I felt left room for a wide range of stuff that clearly were not rpgs to be included. My post was about whether introducing the element of character alteration is enough to classify a game as an rpg, not a comment on DA:I. If your definition allows games which you don't agree that are rpgs to be classified as rpgs, you might want to rethink your definition, deeming them "extreme situations" and try to hide them under the rug doesn't work.

[Lebanese Dude]

Where did I say anything about DA I being an rpg or not?

 

My post was simply in response to your earlier comment

 

"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."

 

which I felt left room for a wide range of stuff that clearly were not rpgs to be included. My post was about whether introducing the element of character alteration is enough to classify a game as an rpg, not a comment on DA:I. If your definition allows games which you don't agree that are rpgs to be classified as rpgs, you might want to rethink your definition, deeming them "extreme situations" and try to hide them under the rug doesn't work.

 

It was more of a response towards the thread in general. I should have been more clear about that in the format.

 

In any case I see what you mean.

 

If you notice, your examples all follow the pattern: "If game X has Y, then X is still not an RPG".

 

I replied that it's the combination of many of those factors that make it an RPG. 

 

So I suppose a better definition would be:

"What makes RPGs different is that they allow you to alter the character and their approach to the narrative".

 

Obviously it's not a concise definition, but it does the trick for me at least. We're focusing on story-driven RPGs as well.

[CronoDragoon]

"What makes RPGs different is that they allow you to alter the character and narrative significantly".

 

So then the majority of JRPGs aren't RPGs? Note that I see nothing wrong with that, just want to make explicit what would be excluded by such a definition.

[Lebanese Dude]

So then the majority of JRPGs aren't RPGs? Note that I see nothing wrong with that, just want to make explicit what would be excluded by such a definition.

 

I edited xD

 

But yes I suppose under my definition, JRPGs like Final Fantasy don't fit the mold.

 

Those games allow you to edit the attire and combat skills of your character, but everything else is generally set in stone.

The same occurs in MMORPGs, except those games actually allow you to roleplay your character's "personality" if you wish.

 

That's why I previously stated that it may vary to some degree.

 

There's a reason why people make the distinction between RPGs such as Action-Adventure, MMO, JRPG, etc...

Those games have varying RP options.

 

I mean...if JRPGs are RPGs, then GTA can certainly qualify as an RPG.

It boils down to a qualitative analysis of what the game is trying to achieve. 

 

GTA and FIFA don't try to "be" an RPG. They want to be a shooter and sports game respectively, but they incorporate RPG elements. They can qualify as an RPG under a certain light, but they don't consider themselves as such.'

 

Meanwhile,  JRPGs and MMOs can be considered combat simulators, but their structure revolves around playing a set of characters and altering their combat potential. They're certainly "weaker" than BioWare games as RPGs, 

 

K a final definition:

 

"What makes RPGs different is that they have a major focus on playing and altering a set of characters as well as modifying combat and/or the narrative".

 

It's still nowhere near concise, but it's good enough. Obviously some games like JRPGs and MMOs are "weaker" RPGs than BioWare games for having less RP options.

Modifié par Lebanese Dude, 13 mars 2015 - 03:41 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Whereas, I think DAO and DAI both qualify, but DA2 fails. We play BioWare's Hawke, but the Warden and Inquisitor are ours.

DAI doesn't match DAO in terms of consequences, sure, but it exceeds DAO in exploration roleplaying opportunities. DAO didn't give us much in the way of options in terms of how to get from place to place or which enemies to fight or what to spend our time doing, and DAI does.

[CronoDragoon]

"What makes RPGs different is that they have a major focus on playing and altering a set of characters as well as modifying combat and/or the narrative".

 

Okay, so I see three conditions in this definition:

 

1. Flexilibity to role-play characters through dialogue or quest approach

2. Flexibility to role-play combat through builds or quest approach (sneaking past guards or mind-controlling them as opposed to nuking them)

3. Narrative reactivity to player decisions

 

The combat one I think I'd rather different wording, since as I said I can envision the player being presented with opposition in non-combat situations throughout the entire game and still have it qualify. Maybe some sort of "flexibity to role-play problem-solving situations" or something of the sort. It could even be folded into 1.

 

So, do all three need to be true? Two? Is there a cut-off at all, or it's just a scale in which having all 3 makes you more of an RPG than having 2, etc?

[99DP1982]

I will repost something from another thread:

 

It's a mix of action RPG with MMORPG, technically you can call it an RPG, but it has deviated from the core RPG concept which emerged from the PnP gaming.

 

I expect an RPG to be as near PnP experience as possible, for action RPG i expect the combat to be engaging and loot to be rewarding, and from MMORPG i expect to be an endless grind, vast areas of nice looking empty space filled with respawning level checking and gear checking enemies and randomized loot that can be ingored if you decide to hunt for crafting recipies and crafting materials.

 

in each of those I would expect at least a decent narrative, world and NPC, so the better they are the better the experience.

 

from the classic RPG I expect a game to be about me trying to fill in the shoes of my character from the narrative stand point, while I let the combat and non-combat activities be based in 95% by the stats of my character, and my only involvement is the tactical one and destination wise (both narrative and character build fitting the narrative). Levels and character build are more important than gear you have.

 

From an action RPG I expect engaging combat mechanics, with a lot of useful combat abilities and a good control schemtics (especially for PC in my case). level and skill build improtance equally important as gear upgrades.

 

from MMORPG i expect to be fully gear dependand with skills deriving dmg and defense from the gear you have, so you are always incentivized to search for upgrades.

 

So to classify:

 

BG series / old Fallouts / KOTOR (classic), Fallout: NV (somewhere in between of classic and action), Darksouls, The Witcher series (action RPG), DA:I / Diablo 3 (somwhere between action RPG and MMO), and then you have MMORPGs like GW 2 / WoW / TES:O

[Cyonan]

Well for me personally, my requirements would be:

 

1. A RPG should allow for progression of character. Usually this is leveling up with stats, but it's not required that it be specifically that.

2. Have flexibility for role playing options out of combat as well as in combat(if applicable. Pretty much any RPG game has it, but I wouldn't dismiss the idea of a RPG without combat).

3. Provide choices that offer narrative or world reactivity

 

I'll admit to not playing JRPGs all that much, so I don't know how much I included those. I will say that something like Fire Emblem I consider to be a turn based strategy game with RPG elements rather than a pure RPG.

 

I'll also admit to being pretty flexible about it, since I don't actually care that much what a "real RPG" is =P

 

There is also the action RPG which honestly feels a bit like "It's sort of like a RPG but not really, so we're just going to throw the word action in front of it because we don't know what else to call it". In general these games still offer the progression of character but have limited out of combat role playing options and may skip out on narrative/world reactivity. 

 

Diablo is the best example of an action RPG I can think of. You still level up your character and have stats with numerous options for ways to build your character for combat, but there's no real out of combat RPing and no choice/reaction in the game's story or world.

 

Since it's going to come up eventually, the only requirement of being a MMO is that you have a persistent online world where you're playing with hundreds or thousands of players at once. After that you either are a MMORPG, MMOARPG, or MMOwhateverelseyouwanttobe.

 

With this I would say that DA:I is a RPG because:

 

1. There are level ups with skill allocation, which provides the progression

2. Various dialogue options provide out of combat role playing options(even if limited to mostly good alignments), and the class/skills provide in-combat role customization

3. After 2 playthroughs I feel it does enough of this, but spoilers =P

[Lebanese Dude]

 

 

So, do all three need to be true? Two? Is there a cut-off at all, or it's just a scale in which having all 3 makes you more of an RPG than having 2, etc?

 

I wouldn't say that all three need to be true. Different RPGs have different goals and target audiences.

 

Obviously, the more those conditions are fulfilled, the stronger the claim to being an RPG becomes.

 

 

Well for me personally, my requirements would be:

 

1. A RPG should allow for progression of character. Usually this is leveling up with stats, but it's not required that it be specifically that.

2. Have flexibility for role playing options out of combat as well as in combat(if applicable. Pretty much any RPG game has it, but I wouldn't dismiss the idea of a RPG without combat).

3. Provide choices that offer narrative or world reactivity

 

 

True. Progression of the set of playable characters is a cornerstone of RPG gameplay (and sometimes narrative).

 

When CoD brilliantly incorporated the ability to progress the player "character" via perks. players still considered it an RPG element.

 

Here's a better definition:

 

"What makes RPGs different is that they have a major focus on the progression of a set of characters as well as the modification of combat and/or the narrative".

[Lebanese Dude]

 

DA:I / Diablo 3 (somwhere between action RPG and MMO)

 

This is just wrong.

 

DAI does not have any of the distinctive MMO elements. Where are the dungeons? Raiding? PvP? Reputation grinds? Auction Houses? 

 

Can people quit throwing that around? Having a couple of trivial side quests in every zone (other than the introductory Hinterlands) does not make it an MMO.

 

Also classifying it with Diablo? Really? I fail to see how the two are in any way related other than the basic RPG elements.

[Dinkledorf]

Repetitive Painful Grind so yes RPG.

[99DP1982]

This is just wrong.

 

DAI does not have any of the distinctive MMO elements. Where are the dungeons? Raiding? PvP? 

 

Can people quit throwing that around? Having a couple of trivial side quests in every zone does not make it an MMO.

 

Open spaces with level gating enemies that you cant avoid.

 

Gear more important than character build. power of skills tied to the weapons you wield.

 

Randomized loot, way worse than crafted counterparts.

 

Needless runs for gazzillion of crafting components (why you need to gather in total a number of anything more than 20-30 pieces in a SINGLE PLAYER game is beyond me)

 

One dimensional enemies, with each level they just get HP and DMG boosts and boss fights with for example dragons require you to punch at it for 20min and you either have the gear to outlast the dmg output competition or you don't.

 

Gold might as well not exist in the game (for me the only use for it was to buy recipes)

 

and these are just the ones that I can list after 1s of pondering on what MMO elements it has.

[Al Foley]

Open spaces with level gating enemies that you cant avoid.

 

Gear more important than character build. power of skills tied to the weapons you wield.

 

Randomized loot, way worse than crafted counterparts.

 

Needless runs for gazzillion of crafting components (why you need to gather in total a number of anything more than 20-30 pieces in a SINGLE PLAYER game is beyond me)

 

One dimensional enemies, with each level they just get HP and DMG boosts and boss fights with for example dragons require you to punch at it for 20min and you either have the gear to outlast the dmg output competition or you don't.

 

Gold might as well not exist in the game (for me the only use for it was to buy recipes)

 

and these are just the ones that I can list after 1s of pondering on what MMO elements it has.

It is a bit amusing on some of these examples...well I guess Origins was an MMO too right?  

[Lebanese Dude]

Open spaces with level gating enemies that you cant avoid.

 

Leveled encounter zones are a characteristic of open world games, not MMOs.

 

 

 

Gear more important than character build. power of skills tied to the weapons you wield.

 

Some pen and paper RPGs forced a character to have a specific set of attributes that they couldn't modify much. Fallout games have this as well. Does that make them MMOs?

 

 

Randomized loot, way worse than crafted counterparts.

 

How is this a characteristic of MMOs? Loot is always random in RPGs....

 

 

 

Needless runs for gazzillion of crafting components (why you need to gather in total a number of anything more than 20-30 pieces in a SINGLE PLAYER game is beyond me)

 

This is a side-effect of a more robust crafting system. I wasn't aware that crafting was the province of MMOs. 

 

 

One dimensional enemies, with each level they just get HP and DMG boosts and boss fights with for example dragons require you to punch at it for 20min and you either have the gear to outlast the dmg output competition or you don't.

 

 

So almost every RPG ever made. What's the point of progression otherwise?

 

 

Gold might as well not exist in the game (for me the only use for it was to buy recipes)

 

 

Irrelevant.

 

---

 

Next.

[99DP1982]

It is a bit amusing on some of these examples...well I guess Origins was an MMO too right?  

 

 

let me check that...

 

wait...

 

stats and levels are actually meaningful.

 

I believe that crafting was a bit different, it had supplementary role and not a core role

 

It did not have open spaces with respawning level gating enemies.

 

Gold was useful and loot generation was much better, even with unique set items hunting.

 

the only thing it shared was the limited types of enemies which scaled only in damage and hp and the fact that you could hardly avoid combat...

[Xiolyrr Zoharei]

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?

 

Soon as I read that, I had to search the for the other thread for a few chuckles. If you don't feel DAI is an RPG, what genre of gaming would you file it under? I say DAI is a hybrid, action/RPG. Video games are not like sports with a rulebook listing official 'do's and don'ts' for every defined genre. Even then the rules change from time to time. Who says that framework expressing different types of characters within the player-character, has to be created under a specific set of guidelines?

[Lebanese Dude]

 

stats and levels are actually meaningful.

 

Meaningful? Being forced to pick a particular attribute in order to choose abilities that had to be taken at a specific level and in a specific order is meaningful?

 

DAO is good at many things. Unfortunately one of the things it's really good at is the illusion of choice when it comes to attributes.

Did you honestly spend your points in anything other than the main stats and the occasional point in constitution? 

 

By all means do that, but claiming that DAO is a better game for allowing your warrior to take magic and consequently hit like a wet noodle with no access to abilities or gear is pretty funny.

 

Also after level 12 or so, stat allocation becomes more of a chore on levelup.

 

"OOOh that extra 3 points of strength on top of my already existing 131 points! That extra ability I'll never use!!! yay!!"

 

At least DAI doesn't reach that point of saturation until relatively late in the game when you're out of ability slots (unless you take a REALLY inefficient build with no upgrades), and even then the useless abilities (til you change your spec and try a new one since you actually CAN) you pick up are offset by access to more passives that actually have a tangible impact on gameplay.

 

 

I believe that crafting was a bit different, it had supplementary role and not a core role

 

 

Crafting is optional in both games. In fact the game's difficulty is balanced around minimal crafting. 
 

DAI's crafting has issues but it's significantly more useful than DAO's.

 

 

 

It did not have open spaces with respawning level gating enemies.

 

Smaller zones with little exploration makes it a better game? Perhaps it may be for you, but this is a highly subjective argument to utilize.

 

 

 

 

Gold was useful and loot generation was much better, even with unique set items hunting.

 

Sell the cudgel for 1000 gold and be set for life.

 

Also every character ends up with the same gear. You always buy the CON ring in Orzammar. You always buy Rose's Thorn. You always use Marjolaine's Recurve. Every warrior uses the Warden's Keep armor til they get Cailan's armor. Then in DAA they equip the Sentinel Armor.

 

So much better than crafting your own gear and customizing your own looks. Pfft.

[Cyonan]

One dimensional enemies, with each level they just get HP and DMG boosts and boss fights with for example dragons require you to punch at it for 20min and you either have the gear to outlast the dmg output competition or you don't.

 

The average raid boss these days in World of Warcraft is more complex than any boss from any Dragon Age game.

 

Hell, I'd be willing to bet that hard mode Mimiron was more complex than any boss BioWare has ever done in any game.

[99DP1982]

Leveled encounter zones are a characteristic of open world games, not MMOs.

 

 

 

Some pen and paper RPGs forced a character to have a specific set of attributes that they couldn't modify much. Fallout games have this as well. Does that make them MMOs?

 

 

How is this a characteristic of MMOs? Loot is always random in RPGs....

 

 

 

This is a side-effect of a more robust crafting system. I wasn't aware that crafting was the province of MMOs. 

 

 

So almost every RPG ever made. What's the point of progression otherwise?

 

 

Irrelevant.

 

---

 

Next.

 

1) i guess by open world you refer to the game like Skyrim, so it does not really change my opinion.

 

2) provide examples when making such claims.... i will refer to fallout as you mentioned it. Which Fallout game and which attributes you can't modify?!

 

3) there is a difference in randomly generated loot and randomly placed loot dependent on encounter difficulty level ...

 

4) what you call robust I call poorly designed for single player game. But to me the best crafting was the one from BG2 when it came to weapons and armors and NWN when it came to supplementary items, like potions, wands, traps, etc.

 

5) slapping 100million HP on the same creature type is not a good progression system, an enemy with different skill set, different behavior, better gear and higher array of skills, perhaps a different composition of enemies or even a whole new set of enemies, that's how you create a sense progression.

 

6) How is it irrelevant? this is exactly the feature of MMO, gold is basically irrelevant unless you are buying crafting materials.

[AlanC9]

1. Flexilibity to role-play characters through dialogue or quest approach
2. Flexibility to role-play combat through builds or quest approach (sneaking past guards or mind-controlling them as opposed to nuking them)
3. Narrative reactivity to player decisions
 
The combat one I think I'd rather different wording, since as I said I can envision the player being presented with opposition in non-combat situations throughout the entire game and still have it qualify. Maybe some sort of "flexibity to role-play problem-solving situations" or something of the sort. It could even be folded into 1.

If combat doesn't necessarily have to include personal combat then many 4x games and the like are RPGs, aren't they? Crusader Kings certainly, SMAC maybe, and so on. And if personal combat is required, that still makes XCOM an RPG unless you figure it fails point 1.

Not a problem with the definition, but an interesting result.