209 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

Truthfully I feel like I can tell an rpg when I play one. It's yet to fail me.

 

but can you write an actual definition for it that can be used in a conversation about RPGs?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Most sad part? I'm oldschool gamer (since ´80s last century), yet last time I've tried EoB style dungeon crawler without automapping and quest markers, I gave up inside first hour.

With a first-person perspective, I want an automap.  But if it's top-down, I don't think a map is necessary.

 

Case-in-point, the first automap of which I"m aware was in Phantasie, an RPG from SSI in 1985.  Now, I didn't love Phantasie (it was basically a Wizardry knock-off), but that map was vital.  However, in SSI's previous RPG - Questron, in 1984 - there was no automap (in fact, the lack of useful maps was fairly important to the game), and Questron was tons of fun.

 

But Phantasie was first-person, and Questron was top-down.

[FKA_Servo]

Considering the ostensible savior of the RPG genre this year has far more in common mechanically with a Rockstar game than most RPGs as I would characterize them (note - that's not an indictment of its quality), I'm starting to wonder if it isn't a just matter of "RPG=branching dialogue paths." That's what lots of people apparently go by.

At this point, I just operate under "game that I like=game that I like." It's simple and easy.

[Zekka]

Considering the ostensible savior of the RPG genre this year has far more in common mechanically with a Rockstar game than most RPGs as I would characterize them (note - that's not an indictment of its quality), I'm starting to wonder if it isn't a just matter of "RPG=branching dialogue paths." That's what lots of people apparently go by.

At this point, I just operate under "game that I like=game that I like." It's simple and easy.

which game is that?

[FKA_Servo]

which game is that?

Uh, The Witcher?

One of the most apt (and honestly one of the most flattering) comparisons people draw is to Red Dead Redemption. And it's tough to characterize it as anything other than a twitchy action game.

That it falls squarely in the same genre as Skyrim, Fallout, Wasteland 2, and Baldur's Gate speaks to how arbitrary the RPG designation is, though. At least, I think so.

[Lady Artifice]

Branching dialogue paths isn't a bad place to start for a definition. I've usually considered anything that lets me decide how the character wants to behave or choose in a specific situation to be an rpg, but then I also know there are relative degrees. The Witcher is a fun game, even if it's not everything I want out of an rpg. I'm not going to start declaring that it isn't an rpg because of that, though. That seems silly. 

[LemurFromTheId]

Branching dialogue paths isn't a bad place to start for a definition.

 

It is. Dialogue isn't a requirement for an RPG - and neither are NPCs.

[Zekka]

Uh, The Witcher?

One of the most apt (and honestly one of the most flattering) comparisons people draw is to Red Dead Redemption. And it's tough to characterize it as anything other than a twitchy action game.

That it falls squarely in the same genre as Skyrim, Fallout, Wasteland 2, and Baldur's Gate speaks to how arbitrary the RPG designation is, though. At least, I think so.

You wouldn't be the first one to call The Witcher an action game.

[Lady Artifice]

It is. Dialogue isn't a requirement for an RPG - and neither are NPCs.

 

I suppose I understand that. Ultimately I was trying to say that what I think defines an rpg is diverging choices. 

[LemurFromTheId]

I suppose I understand that. Ultimately I was trying to say that what I think defines an rpg is diverging choices. 

 

But then you end up with the contrary problem: a game doesn't have to be an RPG to have diverging choices.

 

I guess I should explain my views on this issue...

 

There can never be an unambiguous definition for an RPG. While there are numerous distinctive features that are associated with RPGs, none of those traits are strictly necessary individually. On the other hand, if there are features that are strictly required, those features can also exist in other games, and thus they can't differentiate an RPG from a non-RPG. (If anyone can give a solid counterexample, let's hear it - I'd love to be proved wrong on this.)

 

So, what makes a game an RPG? Simple: it's a game that has enough RPG-like traits that people consider it an RPG. That's all there is to it. It's a completely subjective definition, and it will always remain so - and sometimes that means that people will disagree on whether a specific game is an RPG or not. (EDIT: And that's what forums are for, right? )

 

Frankly, I don't understand why so many people are so dead set on pigeonholing games (or things in general) into strict categories, often even without understanding that just because something is A, it doesn't mean that it can't also be B or C at the same time.

[SardaukarElite]

Game genres aren't really definitions so much as histories. RTSs are all basically clones of Dune II. RPGs are a strange mix of various styles of game springing from attempts to port PnP RPGs over to computers and then things which built on those ideas. 

 

There's a collection of elements you'd expect in an RPG (variant on whether you're talking about BioWare-likes, Bethesda-likes, Diablo-likes or Rogue-likes) but they're not their because the RPG is a separate thing to other genres, they're there because they were in the games that influenced the current generation. 

[FKA_Servo]

You wouldn't be the first one to call The Witcher an action game.

 

I'm not claiming to be. I didn't originate the Red Dead comparison either, though I've played both games, and it's spot on. But that sentiment is still completely eclipsed by the massed throngs proclaiming it the one true RPG. Which isn't wrong.

 

The sort of RPGs I like the most are chiefly and primarily characterized by divergent choices, so I agree with Lady Art in that regard. But it's also true that divergent choices aren't a characteristic of many games also fall under the nebulous RPG umbrella and have for decades.

 

There's a collection of elements you'd expect in an RPG (variant on whether you're talking about BioWare-likes, Bethesda-likes, Diablo-likes or Rogue-likes) but they're not their because the RPG is a separate thing to other genres, they're there because they were in the games that influenced the current generation. 

 

I think this is as good as it gets actually. Part of the reason it's so meaningless as a genre descriptor is because so many great devs have paved the way by carving (and owning) certain niches within the genre. So inevitably, a Bethesda style RPG, or a Bioware style RPG just sort of becomes its own sub-genre.

[Silcron]

I have come here to shamelessly plug Toby Fox's Undertale.

You said you wanted more rpgs? Are I free to assume you want a good rpg (of sorts)? Play Undertale for 10$, 17$ with the soundtrack (it's worth it.)

Now back to the general forum arguing.

[Iakus]

 

The sort of RPGs I like the most are chiefly and primarily characterized by divergent choices, so I agree with Lady Art in that regard. But it's also true that divergent choices aren't a characteristic of many games also fall under the nebulous RPG umbrella and have for decades.

 

I'd say chocies are a staple of an RPG.  But over time the choices have changed.

 

I mean, in Zork you could choose where you go, what you fight with, what treasure you loot.  In the old Gold Box D&D games you assembled your own party, stat-ed them out, geared them with whatever you liked.  Later came games dialogue options, then branching dialogue. Good and evil paths.  Recruitable companions.  Choices with later consequences.  Multiple endings

 

"Choice" has become more and more reactive as games get sophisticated enough to handle them.  And thus, the line of "what is a proper RPG?" keeps getting moved.  But through it all "choice" has been the bedrock of rpgs.  I mean, it stands for "Role-Playing Game"  and came from attempts to duplicate the cooperative storytelling  of a P&P game.  Without the ability to shape the character, to have your own impact on the game world through that character,    what's left?

[Mdizzletr0n]

Are we just defining WRPGs? Because JRPGs aren't so much about player choice as they are narrative.

[FKA_Servo]

Are we just defining WRPGs? Because JRPGs aren't so much about player choice as they are narrative.

 

There's that, too.

 

"JRPG" might as well be its own genre as well.

[AlanC9]

Are we just defining WRPGs? Because JRPGs aren't so much about player choice as they are narrative.

Well, we could declare that JRPGs aren't RPGs at all, I guess.

[FKA_Servo]

Well, we could declare that JRPGs aren't RPGs at all, I guess.

 

Fifteen years ago, I'd be positively frothy at this suggestion. But now, I don't disagree. "Game I like/Game I don't like" and all that.

 

Though I'd actually grant that they're as much RPGs as anything else that purports to fall under that gigantic umbrella.

[Iakus]

Are we just defining WRPGs? Because JRPGs aren't so much about player choice as they are narrative.

honestly, it's been many years since I've played a JRPG (probably Final Fantasy IX or thereabouts) so I really can't say.

 

But from what I could remember, you could still choose companions, gear (to some degree), spells, and had some degree of freedom in visiting locations.  I don't know how much more or less reactive they have become in recent years.

[MrFob]

I am not sure what the OP is asking for here but IMO, the last thing we need is big RPG franchises on a yearly basis. Look at the franchises that went down this road: CoD, Assassins Creed, Far Cry, etc. I don't know of a single case where this practice didn't run a franchise into the ground within 3 years time. Even if you use different teams and each has actually 3 years of dev time, IMO it still destroys the heart of the series that you will see when there is one dedicated team with a tradition in that franchise. Even if people within that team cycle out, it's still a much more gradual transfer than if you switch teams between installments. And that 1-2 years is on the short side for projects of the scale of AAA RPG games, I think is obvious.

 

So I am happy to give a franchise a few years rest between titles, it also makes me more excited about finally getting the next part. If that means that we "only" get 1-2 AAA RPGs a year, I am perfectly fine with that, too. After all, these games are fairly massive as it is and there are other things to do in between as well.

For Mass Effect for example, I am glad that they give themselves 4-5 years between ME3 and ME:A, it's one of the few things that I actually congratulate BW and EA on these days that they did go for more time even though, they could probably have made more short term profit by rushing things along.

[Iakus]

I think what OP is asking for is more major studios to start making RPGs.  Not that Bioware should crank them out faster.

[Master Warder Z_]

I have come here to shamelessly plug Toby Fox's Undertale.

You said you wanted more rpgs? Are I free to assume you want a good rpg (of sorts)? Play Undertale for 10$, 17$ with the soundtrack (it's worth it.)

Now back to the general forum arguing.

 

I despise that game.

 

Well that's a bit of a leap into the narrative, I originally enjoyed it, now I despise it.

[MrFob]

I think what OP is asking for is more major studios to start making RPGs.  Not that Bioware should crank them out faster.

 

Oh, so it's not Mass Effect or even BW related at all. See, that's why we really need the off topic section back.

[Ajensis]

I want an RPG that's set in the universe created by R. Scott Bakker. And I want it to be the best RPG ever made.

 

First time I see someone mention R. Scott Bakker on a forum  *has a huge nerd moment* ... *manages to eventually calm down*

 

PoE's been the game with the system I would have liked, with the story I came to despise. Too much foulosophy and many running dunebuggies in the game.

 

Oddly enough, my experience was the complete opposite. Story was great, especially towards the end, but I quickly grew tired of the gameplay. I just don't think it works to take the Dungeons & Dragons tabletop system (multiple people play their own class, often utilise them in interesting and unpredictable ways) and transfer it to a video game like that (single-player, pre-determined solutions to every encounter). Combat ends up being rinse-and-repeat using the exact same skills over and over, except for the toughest battles where you have to adjust slightly. And maybe I just don't have the time for games I used to, but trying to get a grasp of Priests and Wizards and Chanters and Ciphers... I finished the game despite the gameplay, not because of it.

That said, I liked Neverwinter Nights, which uses much the same system, so maybe it's just a phase.

[Torgette]

Well, we could declare that JRPGs aren't RPGs at all, I guess.

 

RPG's aren't really rpg's either, what if I just want to run a shop on the Citadel and take care of my 6 headed rachni children?? "Choices"