Essence of cRPG revisited (split from: Rosh leaving)

Behold TEH FUTURE!!11!!!!

Yep, that forum is , hmmmm, not for me, but still it's for the fans of that series, and i respect their opinions.

I would also like if they respected the opinions of any Fallout fan, but that's too much to ask i guess...


About Rosh leaving

inq.gif
 
RPG is the following criteria:

1) levelling system of stats/skills of some kind.
2) multiple charecter types.
3) charecter success or failure must rest solely upon charecter skill and not player skill.
4) over-arcing quest with side-quests.
5) must not be any difference in playability for a 16 year old person who games frequently, 35 year old neurosurgeon, and a 90 year old arthritic woman.

to be considered a GREAT RPG it must also have:

6) multiple ways to complete every quest for differing charecter types. ( eg: rogue/warrior/magician/diplomat )
7) ability to have a party to compliment differing skill/template types.


out of 7 requirements for a great rpg, oblivion fails 2 core criteria and both requirements for a great rpg.
 
Briosafreak said:
Yep, that forum is , hmmmm, not for me, but still it's for the fans of that series, and i respect their opinions.
Click to expand...
I don't. Most respectable fans of the series left after Morrowind and were replaced by adolescents for whom MW was their first roleplaying game. The oldies who remained probably harbored some hope that the next game in the series would fix MW's flaws and pick up where Daggerfall left off. Judging by the reactions on TES forums and elsewhere, the Oblivion fiasco has left them disillusioned and alienated. Beth has nothing to worry about, though, because all the hype and overinflated ratings have attracted a train of brain-dead console kids who now comprise the majority of TES fan community and enrich it with idiotic statements like the ones in the above thread.
 
TheWesDude said:
RPG is the following criteria:

1) levelling system of stats/skills of some kind.
2) multiple charecter types.
3) charecter success or failure must rest solely upon charecter skill and not player skill.
4) over-arcing quest with side-quests.
5) must not be any difference in playability for a 16 year old person who games frequently, 35 year old neurosurgeon, and a 90 year old arthritic woman.

to be considered a GREAT RPG it must also have:

6) multiple ways to complete every quest for differing charecter types. ( eg: rogue/warrior/magician/diplomat )
7) ability to have a party to compliment differing skill/template types.


out of 7 requirements for a great rpg, oblivion fails 2 core criteria and both requirements for a great rpg.
Click to expand...
What a crappy, crappy definition. It would mean that Diablo would be a roleplaying game. Hah!

No, TheWesDude, an RPG must have the following: Choice & Consequences and abstraction to make sure that success is not dependent on player physical skill.
All the other things are only means to those ends. Choice means the choice to play many different types of characters and to make many decision, consequences menas that those choices must have the proper and meaningful consequences, something Oblivion generally lacks.
 
Silencer said:
Sander said:
What a crappy, crappy definition. It would mean that Diablo would be a roleplaying game. Hah!
Click to expand...
TheWesDude said:
3) charecter success or failure must rest solely upon charecter skill and not player skill.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Diablo doesn't rely on player skill, unless you want to put 'being able to move the mouse' under player skill.
 
Not to mention that
6) multiple ways to complete every quest for differing charecter types.
Click to expand...
is one of the basic prerequisites a game must meet to come even remotely close to being considered an RPG.

Or that
ability to have a party to compliment differing skill/template types
Click to expand...
isn't an inherent RPG trait by any stretch of imagination. Heh, if having a party is a criterion for great RPGs, then Fallout is not great at all.
 
TheWesDude said:
1) levelling system of stats/skills of some kind.
Click to expand...

A character-defining ruleset is a must, yes. I think you could definitely design a game without levelling or character improvement in the traditional sense, but it would be somewhat unorthodox.

4) over-arcing quest with side-quests.
Click to expand...

This is probably not a must for the RPG definition as much as a criterium for a good one, but it shouldn't just be a sandbox.

5) must not be any difference in playability for a 16 year old person who games frequently, 35 year old neurosurgeon, and a 90 year old arthritic woman.
Click to expand...

You pretty much repeat 3) here.
 
I was beginning to think I was the only person to play Oblivion and think it's been overrated beyond belief, but I take heart that there are some who haven't been blinded by shiny graphics and good looking trees.
 
wrong... diablo fails test# 5.

for both diablos.

they both require twitch reflexes.

Per:

actually 3 and 5 are different in different ways.

3 is about not having player actions determine success for like determining if you hit in combat or say if everyone has the same dialog options even the stupid as fuck warrior as the charismatic/smartass diplomat.

5 is about not having twitch reflexes to play it.

eg: 3 is the if you swing at the guy when he is in front of you, you always hit like in oblivion/fable rather than a charecter statistic that determines that.

5 is that its either turn-based or switchable turn-based/pausable or else your charecter automatically attacks in real-time with options for special attacks/spells.

generally if a game breaks one of those rules it will break both rules, but i wanted to be sure to have them seprate as they were both important.
 
TheWesDude said:
1) levelling system of stats/skills of some kind.
Click to expand...

Per said:
A character-defining ruleset is a must, yes. I think you could definitely design a game without levelling or character improvement in the traditional sense, but it would be somewhat unorthodox.
Click to expand...

Hmm I'm not so sure, the role playing forum, they don't have stats or levelling, but still are role playing.

Back when I was a boy we made up our own game before we got hold of a D&D handbook. Rather than dice we cut cards, there were no stats other than hit points (which were calculated by dealing out several cards each and totalling the values) and classes were determined by picking a picture card which set your character's profession and alignment. We just made things up as we went along and cut cards whenever a success/failure decision was needed. I still think that was the purest form of role playing I've ever been involved in.

Sander said:
No, TheWesDude, an RPG must have the following: Choice & Consequences and abstraction to make sure that success is not dependent on player physical skill.
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums it up for me, though I wouldn't just say physical skill, but mental as well. :) I also think that when saying choices & consequences, it should be explained that this is not just the optional one's that the player willingly choses, but includes allowances for failure. You should never have to reload (unless your character gets killed) if you screw up a quest there should always be another option, a new path to take even right at the end of the game.

What really gets me is Tim Buckley's review on CAD, I got to this
When approaching Oblivion, it might be a good idea to toss out any preconceived notions you have about RPG’s. Oblivion strikes me as more of an RPG/Sandbox hybrid, than an RPG as defined by any previous offering (with the exception of perhaps Morrowind, obviously).
Click to expand...
and gave up reading. So it's not an rpg as we know it, this is as bad as the ES forum, it doesn't fit into the definition of an rpg so let's redifine rpgs???
 
TheWesDude said:
wrong... diablo fails test# 5.

for both diablos.

they both require twitch reflexes.
Click to expand...
No, they don't, they require that you can continuously click your mouse. That's not really much of a skill, though, and being really fast isn't going to make the game easier.

Anyway, a turn-based version of Diablo would still pass the test. Hence it's flawed.
 
requiem_for_a_starfury said:
That pretty much sums it up for me, though I wouldn't just say physical skill, but mental as well.
Click to expand...

Except that that is not true. Any decent CRPG demands a modicum of intelligence to figure out challenge. If not you might as well play ProgressQuest.

requiem_for_a_starfury said:
So it's not an rpg as we know it, this is as bad as the ES forum, it doesn't fit into the definition of an rpg so let's redifine rpgs???
Click to expand...

No, he distinctly says it's a CRPG/sandbox hybrid, not a CRPG. Does he say "redefine RPGs"? No, he's saying that pre-conceived notions don't apply. Which is probably true, just as it is true that pre-conceived notions of what makes an RPG do not apply to any game that is not actually an RPG, from Diablo to Oblivion.

Tim is a slavering Oblivion-whore, though.
 
plus the " goals " in diablo cannot be considered quests because the goal is to go and kill something. without variation. if they had variation it might qualify. plus there is no " quest journal " and such.
 
TheWesDude said:
plus the " goals " in diablo cannot be considered quests because the goal is to go and kill something. without variation. if they had variation it might qualify. plus there is no " quest journal " and such.
Click to expand...
Now you're just redefining your own definition. Quests are quests, no matter what the goals, and whether they're written down in game is even more irrelevant. Just because you find them boring doesn't mean you can suddenly ignore your definition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top