112 réponses à ce sujet

[Vaeliorin]

flem1 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

flem1 wrote...
You're assuming "RPG" in fact has a narrow definition, and that this coincides with what you like about the genre.  This is not, given actual usage, the case.

Actual usage is the problem.  The term RPG (at least in regards to computer games) has been so diluted as to essentially be meaningless.  The scope of games that the game industry puts under the umbrella of "RPG" is such that the term is completely useless.  You get anything from action games (Diablo) to TPS (ME series) to FPS (Borderlands, which was marketed as an RPG before release) to JRPGs (which would be better described as adventure games with fighting) to actual RPGs (you know, characters interact with the world according to their abilities, not the player's, and you have actual control over the words and emotions of your own character, within the limitations of computerization.)

Well, I sort of agree with you.  "RPG" doesn't mean one obvious thing, so perhaps the industry would benefit from sharpening this brand into something specific.  On the other hand, every one of the above sub-genres *does* wear its D&D heritage pretty strongly.  (My broad definition, as mentioned way above.)  Different subgenres emphasize different parts of the D&D experience, but none of them cover all.

Sure, but this assumes you except D&D as the definitive example of role-playing.  While I would accept D&D as the definitive example of single-character miniature wargaming, role-playing wasn't exactly a major focus of the initial concept (given such things as Gary Gygax telling people not to bother naming their characters before they hit level 5, since they're probably just going to die before they make it that far.)  The idea of role-playing evolved and eventually reached maturity becoming more character and personality driven rather than loot and combat driven (thus, the endless role-player versus roll-player debates.) 

The problem is, early computer RPGs (my first was Wizardry) played a lot more like JRPGs than they did BG2 or Torment.  So how are JRPGs (for example) actually not in the genre?

Early computer RPGs suffered because of the newness of the medium.  While cRPGs have evolved to more closely resemble the mature (mature as in full-grown) concept of role-playing games that they're based upon, JRPGs have largely remained unchanged.  This failure to move forward has resulted in games that fail to meet the requirements of the RPG genre.  It's one thing to fall short of the definition because of limitations in the medium, and another to willingly make games that fall outside of the definition.

I would abandon the whole "not a RPG" argument, because that horse has left the barn.  You'd get further saying "traditional RPG" or such.  Look at pen and paper games:  you don't see people saying something's "not a RPG" because it has nontraditional (including dice-free) conflict resolution mechanics.  Ditto the computer side.

You're right, and I wouldn't call those games with non-traditional resolution mechanics not RPGs.  They still meet the criteria of allowing you to control your character's personality and having a means to resolve conflict that isn't reliant upon player ability (unless you know of a game that involves fightfights between players to determine character success.)  Admittedly, those that have completely arbitrary solutions (rock/paper/scissors, flipping a coin) are to me very shallow and ultimately unsatisfying, but that's neither here nor there.

Same with computer RPGs.  As long as they have a resolution mechanic that I can sit at a table and play out (regardless of how deep it is) I'm perfectly willing to accept them as RPGs.  It's when they require something that can't really be written down that I begin to have issues with accepting them as being RPGs.

[Lord Atlia]

I will post my own thoughts on the topic. There was role playing before there was role playing games. Role playing could be like war reenactments which have happened for a very long time. The basis for role playing is that you assume some sort of role which has limitations but you have some free reign to improv it so it is not entirely like a play which is predetermined. D&D combined the systems and game play of old school table top war games and added role playing to them thus creating RPG. Early and some current video game RPGs followed this D&D system of stats, loot, and dungeon crawling sometimes even leaving out the ROLE PLAYING part. Bioware, Bethesda, Quantic Dream, have kept the role playing part but they are evolving the game part thus moving it away from D&D style game play. In conclusion these new games are still RPGs because they have both role playing and game aspects it is just the game play that is changing. (Sorry if any of this has been said before I haven't read through the thread)

[Statulos]

SleeplessInSigil wrote...

You know, if y'all were actually having fun with whatever your idea of "RPG" is, you'd be playing that instead of arguing about what it is that you're playing. 



What's it matter to the way you have fun if you can or can't convince others that it is fun? Unless convincing others is how you have fun. In which case, good luck! 

Oh, fine, then I´ll consider stuff as Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis: Rome as RPG´s since they´re character driven games and some people considered a RPG so...
Those games are fun but they don´t count as RPG´s for sure.

[FollowTheGourd]

My cop-out feeling on it is that I don't even care that much anymore what magically defines an RPG. There are certainly staples that we've become familiar with and would usually expect, but nowadays I tend to look more at the game individually along with the writers, devs, publisher etc to partially guess what I might be getting into. A demo is even better...

Of course if you start throwing in elements strongly associated with other types of games, you could easily get your game classified differently or as a hybrid... I never got around to playing it really, but SpellForce bills itself as an RPG/RTS hybrid. And just because a game has a first-person perspective doesn't mean it's an FPS (First person slasher of course).

For another example, a book falling into the fantasy or science fiction genre doesn't tell me much about the contents... at least not as much as also knowing the author behind the work, and even then.

Modifié par FollowTheGourd, 17 février 2010 - 06:58 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

David Gaider wrote...

Personally, I find it interesting that so many RPG players claim to be fans of the genre but make their requirements for what constitutes an actual RPG so narrow that it doesn't seem to be a genre at all but simply a selection of their few favorite titles. A few titles does not make a genre, after all.

Another thing which I find interesting is the role that nostalgia plays in this. These same players will often swear up and down that there is no nostalgia, but I suspect part of what made older games so special to them is because they were new. That seems like it should be self-evident, but I see a lot of people running on the assumption that the novelty they felt playing an earlier game can be recaptured simply by replicating the features in their entirety -- and looking at those features as if they could exist independently of each other, rather than in the context of a game where there are often trade-offs.

It's also strange that these same people will make contradictory demands: they want novelty and innovation, while simultaneously wanting nothing to actually change. If there was an RPG they liked in the past, they want a new RPG to be made that's just like it but to feel as fresh and new as when they played it back then -- ignoring the fact that they are no longer who they were.

Now that's not to say that people don't like what they like -- just that there's a lot of factors that go into the whole "what is an RPG?" question, many of them emotional. You ask that question and you often get "what should an RPG be?" back. Speaking for myself, I think there's a lot of room in the genre for exploration, and I'm uncomfortable with the entitlement of those who claim to be spokemen for the "real RPG" model -- what they like is intelligent and everything else is "dumbed down" and thus for the less intelligent hoi polloi.

Ideally there would be room for RPG's to come out that cover the spectrum of interests within the genre. If the market is there, the industry will find it. I think what you often encounter is a fear amongst RPG fans that there isn't a big enough market for what they personally like and yet a desire that triple-A games should still be made for them regardless.

In essence I would agree with you - too many people don't actually know what they want.

But we cannot really talk about RPG's wihtout defining what RPGs actually ARE. Language is useless if it has no meaning. If everything is a RPG, then nothing is a RPG.

Personally, I fins stats adn loot interesting (if done right), but not necessary for a game to be a "true" RPG. I agree wiht the OP on what truly is a mark of an OP - good story and a cahracters that grows trough it, a characters whose decisions you decide.

[Ferelden Templar]

David Gaider wrote...

Personally, I find it interesting that so many RPG players claim to be fans of the genre but make their requirements for what constitutes an actual RPG so narrow that it doesn't seem to be a genre at all but simply a selection of their few favorite titles. A few titles does not make a genre, after all.

That's true. Even I get caught into that trap sometimes. Many hardcore gamers themselves have different opinions as to what makes an RPG. Is Borderlands an RPG? Is Diablo? Is Sonic DS an RPG?
As for me its just a marketing title that helps me categorize what this game does. I don't consider it a mark of quality.

Another thing which I find interesting is the role that nostalgia plays in this. These same players will often swear up and down that there is no nostalgia, but I suspect part of what made older games so special to them is because they were new. That seems like it should be self-evident, but I see a lot of people running on the assumption that the novelty they felt playing an earlier game can be recaptured simply by replicating the features in their entirety -- and looking at those features as if they could exist independently of each other, rather than in the context of a game where there are often trade-offs.

I agree that a game is the sum total of ALL the features. But you can't ignore that some features do bear repeating. A lot of people have complimented the hacking minigame in ME2 as an example. If you can improve something or add something to the experience you should...

It's also strange that these same people will make contradictory demands: they want novelty and innovation, while simultaneously wanting nothing to actually change. If there was an RPG they liked in the past, they want a new RPG to be made that's just like it but to feel as fresh and new as when they played it back then -- ignoring the fact that they are no longer who they were.

That's true, you also evolve as a gamer. There are few games on a list I could state that really made my day. But among them are games like Mass Effect 2 & DAO that bucked the trend of that era. I really do like the fact that RPGs are more forward looking now, adapting gameplay improvements from other genres to make a better experience.

That's not to say old school doesn't work. I play four-player beat-em ups on the X360 with my nephews and have as much fun as I would taking down a collector ship in ME2.

Now that's not to say that people don't like what they like -- just that there's a lot of factors that go into the whole "what is an RPG?" question, many of them emotional. You ask that question and you often get "what should an RPG be?" back. Speaking for myself, I think there's a lot of room in the genre for exploration, and I'm uncomfortable with the entitlement of those who claim to be spokemen for the "real RPG" model -- what they like is intelligent and everything else is "dumbed down" and thus for the less intelligent hoi polloi.

There's always been some form of pretension by the RPG elitists who think that way. If people just treat it as a set convention of rules to govern your play the world would be a better place.
The problem really is that RPGs have more emotional impact on its fans that other genres. And where emotions are involved.... <_<

Ideally there would be room for RPG's to come out that cover the spectrum of interests within the genre. If the market is there, the industry will find it. I think what you often encounter is a fear amongst RPG fans that there isn't a big enough market for what they personally like and yet a desire that triple-A games should still be made for them regardless.

Why should it be a triple-A game then? There are plenty of other games out there to suit your needs. Triple-A games should be there to bring something new to the table. If not, games will end up like the movie industry.

[Baracuda6977]

I AM A GHOST



looking at these guidelines, i feel that the only reason we are defining RPG as such is because it hasn't been done any other unique way, lately there has been hybridization, but no new unique gameplay styles



the available market shapes the definition of the genre for better or for worse, and as i said before, play a role, not fill a role and we need a new name for 'rpgs'

[orpheus333]

I've been thinking about this alot since some of the threads in the ME2 forums and after playing a PnP game of Wushu a few days ago have come to a few conclusions at least for myself.

Wushu at its heart is a system for maintaining narrative truth. It allows the playing to perform various acts as their characters without the need for or confines of statistics. Instead the quality of the players narrative effects the speed and progression of the plot as a whole.

Wushu while fun is a collaborative narrative effort and pretty impossible for a single player cRPG to begin to emulate however its lack of statistics enforcing character ability doesn't detract from it being a role-playing game. The essence of the role-playing game is collaberative story-telling the rest are systems in order to control and reinforce the idea of narrative within these sessions. Whether by making sure the thief is the only one that can pick-pocket or the mage is the only one too sling spells all these are used to control the player from destroying the truth of the setting and collaberative story being told.

For me at least the important element of the role-playing genre is the narrative, a collaberative narrative between the developers and the player. The statistics, loot and combat systems are ways to enforce the player within their role, and fun enforcement they are too Games within themselves, with challanges and systems to work with and overcome.

Modifié par andyr1986, 18 février 2010 - 03:07 .

[JHorwath]

Shrug, RPG's are changing like everything else over time.  Movies, sports, climate, lives, ect..  There is a pain in change.  The thing I don't like about the current situation is when money grubbing publishers start throwing their weight around and cater to the whatever sells is the thing we do crowd or mainstream.  If the current trend in gaming keeps going rpg's are going to be reduced to fps that have xp like the online component of games like COD, Gears of War, and every other new fps game or tps game on the market.

I understand that this is a buisness but at what point do artists and developers draw the line to sell their souls for the all mighty dollar or simply put- Sell out.  Which, I think it's safe to say, a few people who have been vocal on this forum think Bioware did.  Sell Out...

I mean C'mon show some integrity in what you do or one day you'll turn around and realize that the only people who buy your product are little kids and will in turn relegate the video game industry to a joke.  A virtual babysitter.  Bubble gum.  A waste of time.  Ect...

Sigh, don't take what I said too seriously.  I'm a huge idiot anyway.  Just venting some steam.

Modifié par JHorwath, 18 février 2010 - 04:18 .

[Ferelden Templar]

JHorwath wrote...

Shrug, RPG's are changing like everything else over time.  Movies, sports, climate, lives, ect..  There is a pain in change.  The thing I don't like about the current situation is when money grubbing publishers start throwing their weight around and cater to the whatever sells is the thing we do crowd or mainstream.  If the current trend in gaming keeps going rpg's are going to be reduced to fps that have xp like the online component of games like COD, Gears of War, and every other new fps game or tps game on the market.

I understand that this is a buisness but at what point do artists and developers draw the line to sell their souls for the all mighty dollar or simply put- Sell out.  Which, I think it's safe to say, a few people who have been vocal on this forum think Bioware did.  Sell Out...

I mean C'mon show some integrity in what you do or one day you'll turn around and realize that the only people who buy your product are little kids and will in turn relegate the video game industry to a joke.  A virtual babysitter.  Bubble gum.  A waste of time.  Ect...

Sigh, don't take what I said too seriously.  I'm a huge idiot anyway.  Just venting some steam.

I get where you're coming from. I used to play Tabletop, PBEMs, and online RPGing.

For me though, I've come to the conclusion that I'm glad these games exist for us to enjoy while we're around. Pretty soon though, the games won't be made for us anymore - and we may be relegated to running them on Windows emulators to recapture the experience.

My teenage nephew plays Left For Dead now, and I can't say that I relate to him in that way. It is a good thing that we relate to HALO and other 360 games. But I do wonder whether we can relate to the DS 3 year olds and the games that they'll be playing in the future?

As for trends, well... you never know. I never for the life of me ever thought that LEGO Batman would be such a great game. GTA took me by surprise, but I never liked to play it. The industry is more than just FPS and TPS. I just think they get a hell of a lot more press than other games. I came from an era when Sierra dominated with the Adventure Game genre for the PC. Look where that ended up.

[Doug84]

Ferelden Templar wrote...

JHorwath wrote...

Shrug, RPG's are changing like everything else over time.  Movies, sports, climate, lives, ect..  There is a pain in change.  The thing I don't like about the current situation is when money grubbing publishers start throwing their weight around and cater to the whatever sells is the thing we do crowd or mainstream.  If the current trend in gaming keeps going rpg's are going to be reduced to fps that have xp like the online component of games like COD, Gears of War, and every other new fps game or tps game on the market.

I understand that this is a buisness but at what point do artists and developers draw the line to sell their souls for the all mighty dollar or simply put- Sell out.  Which, I think it's safe to say, a few people who have been vocal on this forum think Bioware did.  Sell Out...

I mean C'mon show some integrity in what you do or one day you'll turn around and realize that the only people who buy your product are little kids and will in turn relegate the video game industry to a joke.  A virtual babysitter.  Bubble gum.  A waste of time.  Ect...

Sigh, don't take what I said too seriously.  I'm a huge idiot anyway.  Just venting some steam.

I get where you're coming from. I used to play Tabletop, PBEMs, and online RPGing.

For me though, I've come to the conclusion that I'm glad these games exist for us to enjoy while we're around. Pretty soon though, the games won't be made for us anymore - and we may be relegated to running them on Windows emulators to recapture the experience.

My teenage nephew plays Left For Dead now, and I can't say that I relate to him in that way. It is a good thing that we relate to HALO and other 360 games. But I do wonder whether we can relate to the DS 3 year olds and the games that they'll be playing in the future?

As for trends, well... you never know. I never for the life of me ever thought that LEGO Batman would be such a great game. GTA took me by surprise, but I never liked to play it. The industry is more than just FPS and TPS. I just think they get a hell of a lot more press than other games. I came from an era when Sierra dominated with the Adventure Game genre for the PC. Look where that ended up.

I think the natural reaction is to fear where the industry is
going. Hell, we don't want to end up in the bad places the movie
industry is. But... I think its worth noting that even in the movie
industry, some quality gems are still coming out right now. Obviously,
alot of swill gets put out too, but that'll always be true ("90% of everything is crap").

I think...at the moment at least....there is a huge pressure to perform well on the shelves. After all, money is tight all around, and failing to make a good turn is a bad thing for publishers.

If you want things that aren't bound by performance, you need to goto the indie market. BUT you can't just say to developers like, say, Bioware, that they should ignore their performance in the market. You can have fearlessnes or a budget, not both.

That said, I rail against this idea that all games are falling into a vat of low quality. Its perception, in my opinion, that is at fault.

As for tabletop...well, I have a different perceptive on the matter because tabletop RPGing never really took off in a big way over here in the UK. To me, it was video games or no RPGing at all.

[Nikator]

Thanks all for the replies, very insightfull posts (Many of them), and I am also honoured to have David Gaider post in my thread! (Great job on Dragon Age, goes to all the writing team, ofcourse).

I think this is a very interesting topic that needs to be discussed more, simply because as it is today, the term "RPG" seems to be a bit too loose. Or perhaps not loose, but I suppose the word mean different things/expectations for different people, and I fear that this might be a "danger" to the future of RPG's. As others said, I fear most of all that the RPG-genre (When speaking of RPG I mainly think of Bioware games more than, say, Diablo/Borderlands) will become "watered down", or simply fail to fulfill my own expectation of the genre.

Ofcourse, this might sound selfish, but I do not think I am alone in this way of thinking, hence, perhaps, the "problem". Different gamers has come to expect different things from the label "RPG", and might thus be disappointed in games labeled as "RPG's" when it does not fit their own definition of RPG.

Then again, I do not think the solution would be to make a definition of the word "RPG" set in stone. As I read from another poster, an RPG can for example be a "shooter", or "tactical (Think Dragon Age/Baldurs gate), the term RPG does not necessarily neutralise the RPG aspect of a game (Think Mass Effect). But then again, some would say it does, considering Dragon Age an RPG, but Mass Effect 2 not. This is also part of the reason of the conflict, I suppose.

Modifié par Nikator, 22 février 2010 - 02:11 .

[Gena Mafer]

The "Role" in RPG orignially referred to the role a unit or class would play in a party; it later grew ambiguous, when the fantasy scripts were added.

'RPG' in the gaming industry today, however (which caters to anyone with a pulse and a wallet), now means interactive talkiness and Chosse-Your-Own-Adventure connundrums. The strategy and number-crunching, if not gone already, will be soon enough, since it requires a brain and is therefore a threat to sales.

Only the cinematic LARPing will remain in videogame 'RPGs', something which was always the red-headed stepchild of PnP gaming.

What's an RPG? A game with two halves: One is the complex number crunching and strategizing; the other is essentially an adventure story. They exist independent yet symbiotic. Developers today are ashamed of giving that first half its due out of fear that they will alienate walking sales figures, and because they forgot that they make games instead of interactive movies.

OP, there's no identity crisis for RPGs. 

What's happening to them is clear: In the quest for big markets and big dollars the genre has been tooled for mass appeal, with no little thanks to BW themselves.   The old-schooler proto-nerds (once much more selective of their company) like the Good Doctors (and perhaps Mr. Gaider too) have become exactly those folks who were ant-Establishment Hippies in the Sixties but are now corporate CEOs who drive a Mercedes.

Modifié par Gena Mafer, 22 février 2010 - 08:07 .