What does make an rpg is the ability to customize your character and play YOUR character. Geralt isn't yours. His personality is defined by another. There's very little wiggle room in that. Dragon Age allows for those things. I'm not saying that TW3 is bad, but it's a lot closer to an adventure game than pure rpg.
So I guess none of the SNES/PlayStation 1 era RPGs are.....RPGs then because those games do not allow for you to customize the protagonist.
I am not seeing your logic here.
There are people who can't stand playing RPGs with set characters like the witcher series. Hence, games like DA: I exist. Theres no need to say one RPG isn't proper compare to another. Theres just different styles of RPGs and some prefer to play only a certain type. Personally, I have no preference and can get into either type of game.
We're a week into June. I guess it's time for this month's "what is an RPG" thread.So I guess none of the SNES/PlayStation 1 era RPGs are.....RPGs then because those games do not allow for you to customize the protagonist.
I am not seeing your logic here.
There are people who can't stand playing RPGs with set characters like the witcher series. Hence, games like DA: I exist. Theres no need to say one RPG isn't proper compare to another. Theres just different styles of RPGs and some prefer to play only a certain type. Personally, I have no preference and can get into either type of game.
But that isn't the debate here. Ariella said that Witcher 3 isn't a RPG because you cannot customize the protagonist. By his definition, none of the 90s era RPGs are not RPGs then because I do not recall them allowing you to create your own protagonist in terms of race, gender, and even class.
Again, I fail to see his logic.
So I guess none of the SNES/PlayStation 1 era RPGs are.....RPGs then because those games do not allow for you to customize the protagonist.
I am not seeing your logic here.
So I guess none of the SNES/PlayStation 1 era RPGs are.....RPGs then because those games do not allow for you to customize the protagonist.
I am not seeing your logic here.
I have actually started writing about that in this editorial series I have begun developing, called Playing Roles.
It's basically my attempt at a more historical and scholarly approach to role-playing games. The first article is a two-parter about RPGs, specifically their naming and conventions, and what makes them such, like how terms such as WRPG and JRPG are problematic, how CRPG is part of the lexicon for PC only, what we should be naming RPG's now and in future articles, what actually can be considered an RPG, since that definition is now changed.
If stuff like Borderlands for example, or Torchlight, or Tower of Heroes, or God Save the Queen can be considered RPGs, then it's worth analyzing because it's now crossing into different genres all together.
Not to mention such debates can finally be put to bed, or we at least now have some more analysis on the subject to consider.
I have actually started writing about that in this editorial series I have begun developing, called Playing Roles.
It's basically my attempt at a more historical and scholarly approach to role-playing games. The first article is a two-parter about RPGs, specifically their naming and conventions, and what makes them such, like how terms such as WRPG and JRPG are problematic, how CRPG is part of the lexicon for PC only, what we should be naming RPG's now and in future articles, what actually can be considered an RPG, since that definition is now changed.
If stuff like Borderlands for example, or Torchlight, or Tower of Heroes, or God Save the Queen can be considered RPGs, then it's worth analyzing because it's now crossing into different genres all together.
Good point. At one point, an RPG was an RPG and no other videogames really cared to use any RPG features in their games. Now you have FPS, Sports, and 3rd Person shooter games all having RPG elements such as leveling up, player customization, inventory management/crafting and so on. But man, I can't believe how someone can discount Witcher 3 as not being an RPG because you cannot customize Geralt. Ariella must be a young gamer cause he/she clearly was not gaming back in the 1990s.
Correct. JRPGs are not RPGs.
Spoiler
You get a like for using an image from the most prestigious source.
Good point. At one point, an RPG was an RPG and no other videogames really cared to use any RPG features in their games. Now you have FPS, Sports, and 3rd Person shooter games all having RPG elements such as leveling up, player customization, inventory management/crafting and so on. But man, I can't believe how someone can discount Witcher 3 as not being an RPG because you cannot customize Geralt. Ariella must be a young gamer cause he/she clearly was not gaming back in the 1990s.
I should point out, customization is common for most CRPG's since the 1980s. The non-customizable protagonist is found in the traditions of games like Final Fantasy (after the first game), Dragon Quest, Suikoden, and SMT, to name a few.
Truth be told, companies like CD Projekt Red and BioWare tend to offer "hybrid" type of role-playing games if we use the "JRPG/WRPG" labels. Which is partially why I think the labels are bullshit and misleading, it's impossible to adequately label those two games in one camp or another if you look at it by base mechanics alone. Thematically...you can argue story and pacing are different, but thats also a moot point in general since such conventions are also blurred today.
Wasn't there a bunch of articles released in January when EA's Q3 figures came out that stated that DA:I was BioWare's most successful release (based on copies sold) and exceeded their expectations?
Also, if TW3 sales tell us anything, it's that mainstreaming and streamlining are successful approaches to game design, and that the much maligned preorder culture is here to stay (over 1 million of those sales were preorders, if memory serves). Also, their marketing was really successful, and it is apparent in the game's design that they addressed both the criticism their previous games received (like the confusing UI and combat mechanics, lack of tutorials) and the requests of the fans (more open world etc.). That tends to lead to success in most cases.
Younger gamer? Don't make assumptions. I played Ultima 4 through 7, the Bard's Tale series among others. Hell, I was playing Zork and the other infogram games. I've been gaming since the Apple 2 e came out. Doesn't qualify me as 'younger'.Good point. At one point, an RPG was an RPG and no other videogames really cared to use any RPG features in their games. Now you have FPS, Sports, and 3rd Person shooter games all having RPG elements such as leveling up, player customization, inventory management/crafting and so on. But man, I can't believe how someone can discount Witcher 3 as not being an RPG because you cannot customize Geralt. Ariella must be a young gamer cause he/she clearly was not gaming back in the 1990s.
Younger gamer? Don't make assumptions. I played Ultima 4 through 7, the Bard's Tale series among others. Hell, I was playing Zork and the other infogram games. I've been gaming since the Apple 2 e came out. Doesn't qualify me as 'younger'.
Well according to you, games like Vagrant Story, .hack, Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Xenogears, Persona 2, Lunar, Parasite Eve, Secret of Mana, Illusion of Gaia, and Lagoon are not RPGs. None of those games allow you to create your own protagonist.
Most of them don't let you create your own protagonist...i'm lost on your point here.
People have personal definitions on what they consider a RPG. That doesn't mean it's universal, or technically factual, it's just opinion.
And titles like ultima, bards tale, wizardry, the like, do have customizable protagonists and pre-date most of those games you just mentioned. So this time, id say, you are incorrect in your assertion.
Only on BSN would get away with saying the great JRPGs of the SNES and PS1 era are not rpgs. Are they wrpgs? No, but they are a subset of the genre.
Wow, just wow.
Oh don't get me wrong, I disagree with Ariella completely.
But what you said made no sense at all factually when it comes to age.
So yeah, I say you are both wrong in this case for different reasons But whatever, time for bed.
Oh don't get me wrong, I disagree with Ariella completely.
But what you said made no sense at all factually when it comes to age.
So yeah, I say you are both wrong in this case for different reasons But whatever, time for bed.
Most of them don't let you create your own protagonist...i'm lost on your point here.
People have personal definitions on what they consider a RPG. That doesn't mean it's universal, or technically factual, it's just opinion.
And titles like ultima, bards tale, wizardry, the like, do have customizable protagonists and pre-date most of those games you just mentioned. So this time, id say, you are incorrect in your assertion.
Now back to the success of DAI.
TW3 sells over 4 mill in two weeks. How did DAI compare?
I'm mostly curious about what will be their sales overall,it seems that they do not have any problem in showing their data.
I'm mostly curious about what will be their sales overall,it seems that they do not have any problem in showing their data.
So I am wrong for saying that 90s era JRPGs are infact rpgs?
Wow, I know BSN is allergic to Witcher 3, but to go as low to discredit its success and impact on the wrpg genre by saying it isnt an rpg cause you cannot "create" Geralt?
This place....
Oh for the love of god...
One, don't put words in my mouth, I hate it when people do that, especially when you try to spin it into something. Don't pull that **** on me dude.
Two, I was referring to this tidbit.
Ariella must be a young gamer cause he/she clearly was not gaming back in the 1990s.
You are wrong about not only that assumption of Ariella's age, but about the 1990s in general, which was the zenith point of turn-based role-playing games and the decline and subsequent revival of dungeon crawlers, RTT-RPGs, and the CRPG market in general, which mostly had customizable protagonists. If you maybe read my article you might get that part.
That is where you made a mistake.
Ariella I would say is also wrong in her assertions, the "set characteristics" stuff is all bunk at this point in the modern day, and barely held water back in 2004. You are right to call Ariella out on such games not being role-playing games when they are in the end. But that is an opinion, not something factual, hence, both of you are wrong on two different things, if you ask me.
Do I have to explain it again? I really don't want to point out the obvious anymore, it's annoying at this point and ****** tiresome sometimes with people.
Now back to the success of DAI.
TW3 sells over 4 mill in two weeks. How does DAI compare?
http://www.ign.com/a...pies-in-2-weeks
Ariella I would say is also wrong in her assertions, the "set characteristics" stuff is all bunk at this point in the modern day, and barely held water back in 2004. You are right to call Ariella out on such games not being role-playing games when they are in the end. But that is an opinion, not something factual, hence, both of you are wrong on two different things, if you ask me.
Do I have to explain it again? I really don't want to point out the obvious anymore, it's annoying at this point and ****** tiresome sometimes with people.
Only on BSN would get away with saying the great JRPGs of the SNES and PS1 era are not rpgs. Are they wrpgs? No, but they are a subset of the genre.
Wow, just wow.
True, but I look at success in two ways, there is physical success such as sells and there is reputation success such as word of mouth after release. A person may pay money for a service or product but how many are satisfied with that purchase?Thought sales was not a good indicator of success? Rhetorical, as I am glad for both companies. Both are doing well financially and may finish up as back to back GOTY winners for their games.
Retour en haut
