IGN put their hands on Stalker

[Odin]

IGN is the latest to put their hands on the latest S.T.A.L.K.E.R. build, or the build that they showed at the German Games Convention 2004. And they of course wrote a hands-on preview after playing around with it, here's a quote:<blockquote>Even though S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is a first-person shooter, it contains a lot of role-playing elements similar to Deus Ex. In addition to the aforementioned dialogue trees, you can also expect a few basic stats such as health, radioactivity, food and endurance. Health is pretty understandable since it's in every shooter. Get shot, lose health. Radioactivity is similar. If you absorb too much radiation in affected areas, you'll get sick and eventually die. Food and endurance are a little bit different. You'll have to rest and eat occasionally in S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and if you don't find a safe place to bed down, expect to be attacked in the middle of your slumber.</blockquote>They've also posted some screenshots for you to see.
Link:Stalker hands-on@IGN

 

[SuAside]

Even though S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is a first-person shooter, it contains a lot of role-playing elements similar to Deus Ex.

hopefully they mean Deus Ex 1, didnt really like the second

 

[Tempistfury]

Its sounding better and better.

IGN wrote:
Even though S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is a first-person shooter, it contains a lot of role-playing elements similar to Deus Ex.


hopefully they mean Deus Ex 1, didnt really like the second

^- and that too.

 

[Role-Player]

Even though S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is a first-person shooter, it contains a lot of role-playing elements similar to Deus Ex.

Interesting, because Deus Ex was primarily a shooter with very minimal RPG elements.

In addition to the aforementioned dialogue trees, you can also expect a few basic stats such as health, radioactivity, food and endurance.

As always, IGN seems to have incomprehensible standards backed up with amateurish vision of things. Dialogue trees in an RPG should take into account the character I'm playing. Like its sequel, all Deus Ex did was present the same base dialogue choices regardless of who my character was. It was only when specific actions were made or when specific knowledge was learned that I got different dialogue choices. And the vast majority of them were unimportant, even - the only choices that actually mattered to the game in a whole were the ones made in the last level.

 

[Ashmo]

"RPG elements" means you have skills and gather experience points.
An action game with RPG elements is an action RPG. NOT an RPG.
RPGs require more than just RPG elements, that's because "RPG elements" is an empty marketing phrase which only covers one aspect of RPGs, the one that is the easiest to point out as "element of an RPG" -- the truth is that the bigger picture has a lot more to do with it than those tiny elements. And adventure game is closer to an RPG than an Action RPG.

 

[SuAside]

Interesting, because Deus Ex was primarily a shooter with very minimal RPG elements.

true, but those extra (yet minimal) RPG elements added some extra flavor and made the game...

As always, IGN seems to have incomprehensible standards backed up with amateurish vision of things.

they speak in words at the same leve as their public

Dialogue trees in an RPG should take into account the character I'm playing. Like its sequel, all Deus Ex did was present the same base dialogue choices regardless of who my character was. It was only when specific actions were made or when specific knowledge was learned that I got different dialogue choices. And the vast majority of them were unimportant, even - the only choices that actually mattered to the game in a whole were the ones made in the last level.

yeah that bothered me too, but it was better than the standard FPS games (you wouldnt be able to choose at all...)

 

[Role-Player]

Note that I have nothing particular against Deus Ex or any other game which combines genre-specific elements into something else; this wasn't a random, angry little tirade against it. I just don't feel a hybrid should be placed at the same level as the thing which it derived from (because by nature it will only have some aspects of what it derived from).

As far as I am concerned, calling Deus Ex an RPG is the same as calling Diablo an RPG. Both of them have RPG elements, but they're not roleplaying games.

 

[Ashmo]

Deus Ex was a genre mix: FPS / Action RPG. Diablo was a pure twitch action style Action RPG.

The problem is that many people are ignorant of the fact that Action RPG and RPG (or CRPG) are VERY different and mostly unconnected genres.
One could argue that Deus Ex is a bit more than just an Action RPG because it had a multiple choice dialog system, but considering the endings were all determined within the last mission and the game does not really provide much freedom of choice, I don't think so.

In my opinion it was a very good FPS / Action RPG genre mix. Treating it as a full fledged RPG would however not be fair and I don't think anybody who does so really is aware of the difference between RPGs and Action RPGs.

To visualise the difference a bit:

Take Crusader 1 or 2. Now put an experience point based skill system in it and maybe even allow some dialog choices if you feel kinky. There you go: you've just turned an Action game into an Action RPG. If you now would also change the mission based story into less or more non-linear a game world with a lot of freedom of choice, then you might eventually end up with a true RPG, but the game would play very differently from the real Crusader games.

Take Diablo 1 or 2. Now remove the experience based skill / stats system and in the case of FO2 make the skills and spells be purchasable. You've just made an Action game out of an Action RPG. If you would instead remove most hostile NPCs, make the cities more interconnected and remove a lot of the combat focus by adding dialog choices, real quests and so on, then you might end up with a real RPG. The game would again be very different from the original ones, while the Action game version wouldn't be.

If you've payed attention you'll notice that MMORPGs aren't RPGs but Action RPGs. That is again the fault of the very same marketing people who coined the genre name. Genre names are phrases, they don't determine what a game plays like. An Action RPG has little to do with an RPG and very much in common with an Action game. As a matter of fact many Action games eventually "evolved" into Action RPGs, at least in a very primitive way: by adding skills rather than power-ups.
MMORPGs really should be called Massively Multiplayer Online Action Role Playing Games rather than Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games, but people are ignorant enough not to care.
It's more difficult to produce a good RPG than a good Action RPG. It's easier to provide action than deep atmosphere within a complex game world.

 

[Bradylama]

If you've payed attention you'll notice that MMORPGs aren't RPGs but Action RPGs.

I think we're losing sight of what defines roleplaying.

In MMORPGs, the player character is defined by the player, and the player adopts a persona in a fictional world. How the player character interacts with the world, and develops, is determined by the player.

Then again, this sortof reasoning leads to the slippery slope argument of, "FPS has the player adopting a role, why don't you call those RPGs?"

The answer to that is pretty simple, as the player role has been pre-defined. Master Chief, J.C. Denton, Gordon Freeman, etc., etc., are all personas and characters that were pre-defined by the developers. While the player may control them, there's no mistaking that the player is Gordon, not Gordon being the player.

I know I was going somewhere with this, but now I can't remember.

What I'm trying to say is that the definition of an RPG isn't set in stone. Are skill-based or xp-based levelling systems required for roleplaying? Is a levelling system required at all? Computer Roleplaying Game is a pretty broad term.

It's easier to provide action than deep atmosphere within a complex game world.

I'd say that an MMORPG would have to have both of these things in order to be succesful. I doubt anybody would argue that Anarchy Online lacks either atmosphere or a complex game world.

I think what you're really going for here is that combat systems are what define Roleplaying games.

 

[Hory]

Diablo isn't an action RPG... there are no reflexes to be used. It's simply mindless and reflexless hack'n'slash. Action RPGs are games like Silver.

 

[Ashmo]

Hack and Slay means Action. If you add RPG elements (read: leveling) you got an Action RPG. That it doesn't have any character advancement other than in terms of stats and skills is just proof it's not a RPG, but an Action RPG.

In MMORPGs you don't have a real character development either. You gain new skills, get better stats, but there is no way to better define your role. MMORPGs however are multiplayer games and people can play it as an RPG, which I kind of left out in my previous post.
MMORPGs are by their design first of all (at least mostly) Action RPGs because the NPCs are (usually -- prove me wrong) not capable of making your character become more than a generic hero due to lack of interaction possibilities.
The thing is that you by yourself can decide to act as a mercenary, highwayman, merchant or violent thug by the way you deal with other players. If you utilise the talk option in other ways than just as an in-game chatroom, you can interact with the other players "in your role" and thus define it more clearly, which the NPCs wouldn't allow you to do because of their limitations. That's where you go back from the CRPG with the computer being your only means of interaction to actual roleplaying between human beings.

That would still mean, to me at least, that a MMORPG on its own is merely an Action RPG, but the multiplayer aspect allows people to roleplay within the given setting and create their own stories as supplements to the generic quests and story elements provided by the game itself.

Now back to Diablo: you are forced into a role, technically: the hero who comes to kick Diablo's arse. You do good and fight evil, although your character is generic enough to allow multiplayer -- a clearly defined "hero" like the Vault Dweller, the Chosen One, the nameless hero of Planescape: Torment or even Serious Sam himself wouldn't allow a logical possibility for multiplayer interaction as there can only be one person with that role, how the role is acted out needn't neccessarily be defined (in FO you could be good or bad, but still you were the VD chosen by his vault to find the chip and kill mutants) but the role itself is specific enough to make it unique. Nevertheless there is no real basis for defining your character on your own. There are no dialog options and the only NPCs you can interact with are there to kill you or be killed by you. While a group of people could attempt to roleplay something else on BattleNet, that wouldn't exactly be an easy thing to do, I suppose it'd be as difficult as roleplaying in Unreal Tournament.

So there are two types of character development: the first one being progression in stats, skills and levels, the second being in personality. By acting out your personality you better define your character and thus advance your personality -- this is done by interacting with other people rather than by getting "experience points" and getting better skills, although your skills and stats are an essential tool for acting out your character beyond just "how you do things" -- they define what you CAN do (other than talking to humans or doing other things which require no particular skills -- however in some games even basic things like sitting down require a certain skill level to be existant).
An Action RPG is created by adding means (ways to get experience points, a skill system, ..) for the the first type of character development to a blank character-focussed game and filling the remaining gaps with combat. A CRPG is created by doing the same but providing means (NPCs to talk to, dialog options, in the case of multiplayer games a way to interact with other players, ..) for the second type of character development as well. The gaps can still be filled with combat, but the focus should be decided upon by the player, not the game itself.

Now, of course an Action RPG won't have much to do with role-playing, but that's because "role-playing" is what I just defined as the second type of character development, which an Action RPG is lacking.

The other definition of "Action RPG" is what I would prefer to call a "combat oriented CRPG" or "action heavy CRPG". It is still a CRPG, as in: it provides ways for the second type of character development, however it focusses on action or combat and possibly allows only a limited amount of ways to get out of certain situations without killing things or requires you to kill a lot of things to make any progress in the story whatsoever.
That is, in my opinion, a design decision which does not affect the genre, just as the setting and general atmosphere doesn't. Just because a game is post-nuclear / post-apocalyptic that doesn't mean it has to have a combat focus -- Fallout was a good CRPG although it put a lot of emphasis on combat (while combat could be avoided, combat oftenly was the path of least resistance and thus naturally favored, a limitation of ammo for example could have removed some of that emphasis) -- just as a combat focus doesn't mean it has to be an Action RPG. Even a game with a lot of emphasis on combat could allow the second type of character development; that's where genre mixes are created. In theory it is perfectly possible to have a first person game allow the second type of character development and thus be, by my definition, a CRPG -- although people would most likely classify it as FPS/RPG mix because of the chosen perspective, no matter how little "shooting" the actual game contains.

So technically an Action RPG, by my definition, is an action game with means for the first type of character development. A CRPG on the other hand provides means for both types (or at least the second type -- although then it might overlap with the Adventure genre) of character development.

Note that I did not chose the terms "first" and "second type of character development" in order of importance but rather in order of how obvious they are to the player. The means for the second type are naturally more subtle, dialog options do not neccessarily provide means for character development of any kind at all, thus a player would not neccessarily percieve or identify them as such easily. Also, there might be more precise terms for these things, note the fact I'm not a native speaker and my active vocabulary is somewhat limited.

Now if anybody disagrees with me, please do not just yell "Bullshit", but address what I said in particular and base your reply on that. I do not see my opinion as the international standard and am well aware there are other opinions, some of which might make a lot more sense than mine, but after having had a couple of discussions on this topic in the past, this is what I have settled on, so I guess it's a bit more elaborate than some other people's opinions.

 

[Gnidrologist]

I just don't feel a hybrid should be placed at the same level as the thing which it derived from (because by nature it will only have some aspects of what it derived from).
.

Why? Stalker surely has a full spectrum of what we expect from FPS. So it has some aspects of RPG. Even better.

BTW. Has there been any news related with Xenus on NMA? Because, as far as I'm concerned according on what I've heard, it should be even more RPG biased.

 

[Tannhauser]

Hmm... two questions about Xenus. Is there an English version of the website and is it Post Apocalyptic?

 

[Gnidrologist]

Sorry, here is an english version, but it haven't been updated frequently. This is some english speaking fansite.
No, it's not post apocalyptic, but I thought that while speaking of Stalker we shouldn't forget this, much less known, but promissing project.

 

[Role-Player]

I just don't feel a hybrid should be placed at the same level as the thing which it derived from (because by nature it will only have some aspects of what it derived from).

Why?

Why?

Stalker surely has a full spectrum of what we expect from FPS. So it has some aspects of RPG. Even better.

Something thats not entirely RPG shouldn't be called an RPG. Obviously, something that only has a few similarities, that only has some aspects of comparison with something more complete, is not the same thing.

 

[Bradylama]

I do not see my opinion as the international standard and am well aware there are other opinions, some of which might make a lot more sense than mine, but after having had a couple of discussions on this topic in the past, this is what I have settled on, so I guess it's a bit more elaborate than some other people's opinions.

It sounds fairly reasonable to me. I just differed in the MMORPG thing. As long as the player can roleplay a player-defined character, it qualifies as a roleplaying game for me. MMORPGs do provide the means for this approach, but then you don't necessarily have to be Gerald the Grand and speak in Thees and Thous.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Something thats not entirely RPG shouldn't be called an RPG.

And it's not.

 

[Roshambo]

Two simple things. They are really starting to irk me.

"Action RPG" is pure bullshit, plain and simple. It's nothing more than the publishers (and sometimes developers, too) trying to cash in on RPG popularity to come up with trying to make anything more like an RPG to sell. It's both dishonest in that it implies depth but gives little, and action games have had stats for a pretty damn long time. Using "numbers increase" as an argument is a slippery slope and just results in everything being labeled an RPG. At least Capcom isn't a dishonest house about Chaos Legion and Devil May Cry being Action games. It is the gaming media that is often mistaking the definition due to their rampant console-raised cluelessness.

MMORPGs only have any "role-playing" if you count the presence of a chat client, but as anyone could tell you, the "role-playing" in such is quite contrived. It is also a slippery slope definition akin to the above. It turns online football games with a chat client and an increasing set of skills (there's some hockey games with similar) into the same sort of muddled area that publishers love to insert "RPG" into like a kid and a power socket, but it isn't thought of such because it doesn't fit the clichés of settings developed in before. If it had swords or anything like that included, look out for some idiot calling it an RPG somewhere, and swords aren't a requirement for many. When role-playing is of a minor concern and is in the vast minority of concerns in the game, it would be like calling Far Cry a platform game when it's obviously a FPS, just because you can jump onto things (another thing Mobygames has wrong, platform isn't a perspective, it's a presentation style and sub-genre of Action games - it's possible to have a FP platform game, but they are usually swept under FPS, though some like Jumping Flash and Jumping Flash 2 are distinctly platform games).

RPG is purely meant to resemble "P&P RPG". That's why the sub-genre of RPG was differentiated from the larger genre of Adventure, because they were Adventure games that were much akin to P&P RPG gameplay. The funny thing that most people forget is that character development was present in Adventure games. Maybe not in the A to B stick tab C into slot D format Adventure games, but in many text-based and later Adventure games they made use of character development. Quest For Glory as the perfect example of this, although it tends to fit more into the Action-Adventure genre.

To use a previously mentioned title, Deus Ex is an Action-Adventure game that uses a FP viewpoint. The genres are already there, but I see that the publishers have muddled things up well in trying to redefine everything into "____-RPG", and the gaming media are to blame as well. Not just because of dishonesty, most of them simply don't have a clue.

What I'm trying to say is that the definition of an RPG isn't set in stone. Are skill-based or xp-based levelling systems required for roleplaying? Is a levelling system required at all? Computer Roleplaying Game is a pretty broad term.

Only to the ignorant or those who grew up playing consoles only. Just because you think it is a broad term because it is used as such doesn't mean it factually means such.

Excerpt from an article in progress:

9. RPG Salad, Fried RPG, Roasted RPG in RPG Sauce, Boiled RPG, RPG Scampi

By far one of the largest marketing scams of recent note is to cash in on the RPG genre (formerly filed under the Adventure section in computer stores). It used to be a genre that promised a lot of gameplay, tried for depth given the resources available, and was the epitome of many sleepless nights. Mostly, it implies depth and a world that had a lot of interactivity, and Ultima added more from the P&P RPGs in having how the world reflects the actions of your character (social concerns). Of those that claim to be an RPG in whole or part, very few live up to those defining aspects. There are very few social concerns when you're mashing a button or whacking a space bar like a crack rat.

What is required now for a publisher to give a title the RPG genre label, or some RPG sub-genre that they pulled clean out of their ass? Just give it an incremental stat system. I love the term "action-RPG". These titles are usually nothing more than some action game with a stat system. Stat systems, even incremental, do not make a game an RPG by a long shot. Nor does using a RPG stat system. Many titles have been erroneously dubbed RPGs simply for the sales value of it and the people who believe that it has something to do with RPG play when five minutes into the game could indicate to most people that it isn't.

Then, to add insult to injury, the basic CRPG genre (as in the definition of "like a P&P RPG, but on a computer") has become fairly stagnant with few truly creative titles as of late. First, you can thank EA for first bastardizing and then later killing off one of the lead titles of the genre as well as a development house that made incredible RPGs - of which Fallout, Geneforge, Gothic, Arcanum, Prelude to Darkness, and Planescape: Torment compare to in terms of actual resemblence to P&P RPG gameplay. That is regardless of flaws due to the Infinity Engine and publisher stupidity.

It is a shame that the genres, which used to be there for the sake of gamers being able to find what they want to play, are now nothing more than a jumbled mess because the publishers want to cash in on the RPG craze that started a few years back. Oh, yes...don't forget one important thing. RPGs aren't profitable anymore, so says many industry lackeys. Maybe it might have to do with the problem of cutting through all of the bullshit to find a real RPG instead of some mislabeled pap the publisher decided to shovel out. The publishers are actively trying to cash in on depth while doing everything in their power to excuse as little effort as possible. Publishers also hate to use "Adventure", as it has reference to a genre that was killed out by publisher incompetence (they'd just love it if everyone would forget that point, especially LucasArts). To those in the know, many Adventure games had character development and many involved stats and levels, even if it wasn't to the style of a RPG. Mainly because RPG was left for meaning "having gameplay like a P&P RPG". Kind of funny how that works. It is up to people to learn what the genres are or they can keep perpetuating the publisher dishonesty.

Those who ignorantly perpetuate this problem, or use their own filing system, are another matter to consider. EBGames.com has Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare listed in the PC RPG category. Now, unless my memory is failing or the PC version is vastly different (I have the PS2 version), then EBGames has some serious idiots working for them. There is NO WAY that game could be considered an RPG. The same goes for Freedom Force, which is an outstanding squad-based tactical game (yet it won an award for Best RPG 2001 by those who couldn't tell a sharp object from a dull one, even if it decapitated their coworkers, GameSpy), but by no means is an RPG unless you mean the stats increase - and by that definition, Progress Quest is also an RPG. Creating your own character isn't exclusive to RPGs, and neither is gaining in power and experience. In addition, GameSpot thinks Freedom Force an RPG as well. (See? There is simply no escaping the ignorant incompetence of the "gaming press".)

And the same goes for the ultimate in mislabeled games, Dungeon Siege, where the creaters also seem to think it was an RPG. Let me point out the real genre it is in. An overglorified screensaver and RTS that quickly loses any world depth it might hope to have after the pretty gears in the menu stop. The talk about the sequel does indicate that the Cluepon was delivered to Gas Powered Games in full, and now they're trying to fix the problem. Hopefully they can pull it off this time around than give us another pig in a poke.

(JRPGs are another topic, and it must be noted that the Japanese tend to prefer a more story-driven game that feels like a traditional RPG, but has pre-made characters to flesh out a story. Many ignorant kids in America who were brought into gaming with the Nintendo were taught that it was representative of the genre when they first jerked off to 8-bit tits, and their ignorance of the market as a whole has been compounded now that they have "input" into the gaming media. Choices in the gameplay are becoming a little more widespread now, as it took a few people to point out that the average hentai game has more role-playing than most JRPGs out there. This woke up a number of Japanese developers to the fact that the paint-by-numbers formulaic development style of Square-Enix, with the respective histories of each company, was wearing thin.)

 

[SuAside]

nice read rosh

good job

cant wait for the finished article

although i have to say i never cared less about how the games are labled. each game should be valued on it's own rather than put into a category. hmz, thats kinda off topic really and not what you meant either, so nevermind...

 

[Role-Player]

Something thats not entirely RPG shouldn't be called an RPG.

And it's not.

Sometimes it is. No reason to deny it.