The term "RPG" is being abused

OakTable said:
I am pretty much agree
Click to expand...
He he he.

Anyway, typos aside, what's the general gist of what he is saying?
Click to expand...

Haha (sarcastic) I must have started with another sentence before I went back and rewrote it.
Its corrected now.

One of the things he points out is that when you play an RPG your choices should have some kind of consequence, the world really reacting to it.
The story is shaped by how you play the game and what path you follow in order to accomplish your goals.


As an example of a game that is not a RPG in his opinion despite the producer saying that it is is Fable 2 by Peter Molyneux.

Starting a family has no influence whatsoever and is just a copy of the family across the street.

He played an evil character and tried to do as many evil deeds as possible, including raising the taxes of houses he owned in order to destroy the economy in a town, which was apparently possible according to Mr Molyneux.

And despite him being evil he could still get the good guy ending and regain sympathy from NPCs by doing a little dance.


He also mentions why he feels that the Elder Scroll games are bad RPGs such as Oblivion such as the bad dialog system.
The same goes up for Fallout 3 which suffers the same problem.

You always ask and ask but never really influence people with your reactions or character.

There are a few choices in Fallout 3 but he hardly finds that that makes the game worthy of the title "RPG of the year"
 
Basically that RPGs should be defined by the presence of choices and consequences for the world and the story, not a level progression system.
 
Yeah, but by it's very name, a RPG is just a Game where you Play a Role. This of course makes all games RPGs because you're always playing a role. And your actions usually do affect the world around you, even if it just covering it in blood and corpses and bullet casings.

Frankly though, i don't necessarily think this is true, because RPG's need not have the game world defined by your choices, but rather your character changes.

Both would be nice though, really. You both feel like you're a part of the world and that your character can actually be an extension of you. You can evolve your character as you see fit, and the world has to adopt to his evolutions as he adopts to it's own.

I do like how it basically doesn't consider any JRPG an RPG. Neither do I, really.



Also, he's wrong on Fable II though; Yeah, the family is a load of boring bullshit, but you can ultimately choose the fate of several different areas through out the story.
 
I'd like two things to change in RPG games:

1) Forget fantasy.
I swear, at least a few years without elves, clerics, mages and fighters. Dragon Age: Origins was a fucking snoozefest, and even though it promised originality, at least story-wise, it failed miserably in my books. Most games before that were weaker and weaker copies of old-school fantasy titles. Since Baldur's Gate 2 and PlaneScape: Torment I honestly haven't seen a fantasy-themed RPG that didn't completely suck balls and didn't have me rolling eyes at every dialogue.

2) Let's see more consequences.
I'd love to be able to have impact on the game world. Not just read a little blurb at the end of the game ("You were nice, so town A did really well after you helped them!"). Something like blowing up Megaton in Fallout 3, but, you know, good...
In most 'RPG' titles, you just kinda walk around in a static world where you can piss off / charm some NPCs, or piss off entire factions, but all of it has very little effect on the game world.
 
I've never bought this "choice and consequence" bullshit about RPG's... there has never really been a game with a narrative that you can severely alter the outcome of the main story... some games off a "good" ending and a "bad" ending, but that's the extent of it. For example, in Fallout 1, regardless of the type of choices you make or the type of character you are role playing, you will end up killing the Master in the end.

RPG is a term that means different things to different people. I don't really consider Mass Effect 2 an RPG, but a lot of other people do.
 
Fable II info for those of you who didn't play it.

[spoiler:e5c6d6844d]1) based on your actions (either GOOD or BAD) one area of Bowerstone is either a slum, where you can take jobs to assassinate people or find prostitutes, or it's a wonderful suburb where the then guardsman, now sheriff you helped says "thanks, you did this, all shops will give you a discount because I say so

2) Oakfield. Before you go to THE BIG BAD's LAIR, you can go and deal with either the EVIL cult or the GOOD cult. Help the evil and the same thing happens to oakfield as would Bowerstone Old Town above. Help the good side the town stays the same. Do nothing and EVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIL wins.

3) Westcliff: Invest with a dude and the town goes from bandit camp to vacation spot of the century; don't and it stays the same. [/spoiler:e5c6d6844d]
 
Basically that RPGs should be defined by the presence of choices and consequences for the world and the story, not a level progression system.
Click to expand...

Then how that would distinguish them from adventure games or visual novels, I don't really see.

RPGs are games not interactive books, and an elaborate system of number-crunchy character design and combat is essential.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
Then how that would distinguish them from adventure games or visual novels, I don't really see.
Click to expand...
The difference lies in the consequences. An RPG is supposed to let you choose your role and have the world react to that role. Visual novels and adventure games generally don't as the story and world are static and you're supposed to simply go through the game and experience the linear story. Other than success/failure you have very little influence on the outcome of regular games.

That's not to say that stats and number crunching shouldn't be there, but if you have a game that has statistics but no choices and consequences, you have something like Diablo: hardly an RPG.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
RPGs are games not interactive books, and an elaborate system of number-crunchy character design and combat is essential.
Click to expand...

Combat is definitely not essential and character stats can be downplayed or eliminated.
 
The difference lies in the consequences. An RPG is supposed to let you choose your role and have the world react to that role. Visual novels and adventure games generally don't as the story and world are static and you're supposed to simply go through the game and experience the linear story. Other than success/failure you have very little influence on the outcome of regular games.
Click to expand...

Most of the VN games or VN/RPG hybrids I've played (or favourites, anyway) are characterized by complex branching storylines that depend on certain choices during story progression. I often like to think of Planescape Torment as a Western visual novel because of how heavily it emphasizes that very style of gameplay.
 
sea said:
Kilus said:
The Adventures of Robin Hood.
Click to expand...
Damn you for picking a game I have no familiarity with. :P Can you explain to me what makes it an RPG in the absence of traditional RPG mechanics?
Click to expand...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwv7j0FHaEo[/youtube]
 
John B. said:
That looks a heck of a lot like that one roman game were you escaped the volcano.
Click to expand...

Same Developer and engine.

Anyway in Robin Hood you only have two player statistics, health and strength. Health is just your hit points and strength is how much damage you do with a sword. In a way there is character skill trumps player skill with sword fighting as it based on Robin and his enemies stats. But since the margin on sword fighting is so low the bow is the better way to fight and that's based only on player skill.

You can improve the bow skill by practicing at a archery range, but that only improves reload speed.

Everything else in the game is based on your actions. And there are a lot of choices and consequences.
 
Choices and consequences the defining element to call a game an 'RPG'?... lol no.

There's been plenty of games that are most definitely rpg's and have close to none, or none, 'choices and consequences'.

Unless, the term is confusingly used to describe different gameplay mechanic approaches as well instead of the more commonly understood way to refer to 'choices and consequences', which is (involves) branching storylines and quests, different endings and the like (things that involve direct player choice instead of, let's say, 'character numbers' choice).

You don't simply play a role (or pretend to play one) you play (or rather can play) as many roles as the game mechanics allow you to. That is, it's the game mechanics that define it, the different approaches it offers for solving puzzles and quests to different character builds; for instance; you have a quest to retrieve a certain powerful artifact from a heavily guarded place, now depending on the stats and skills of each build, the retrieval can be approached in different ways; a thief-type may go in sneaking, assassinating silently, lockpicking, a warrior-type may fight it's way in and out, a mage-type may mind-control some guard or beast to get the job done, or levitate undetected past the walls, a diplomat-type may bribe or convince some unhappy guard to get the artifact for him, or to let him in through the back door at midnight, etc, etc. That would require that both the game mechanics and the gameworld itself are properly built for it, and that the approaches are as unique as the character build (by build i don't mean the archetypical thief, mage, etc, stuff that i used in my example above, but if you think of non-class systems such as the one in the Fallout games, i mean the general 'tendency' of the character as dictated by it's player-chosen stats and skills) required to do it (that is, character skill over player skill). That after you get the artifact you get the choice to give it to the npc who asked you for it or to tell him to bug off and keep the artifact for yourself (and perhaps make an enemy out of that npc or group), it's indeed a very, very nice thing to have (and one that it's considered a 'must' nowadays), but not the defining RPG seal.
 
sea said:
So, what separates it from an open-ended action game with a good story? I'm not trying to nitpick too much, but having a health statistic or choice and consequence on its own doesn't make something an RPG, otherwise BioShock is an RPG, and I don't think anyone here would agree with that assessment.
Click to expand...

Volume of choice and how much the game is built around it. Bioshock only has one story choice. You don't call a FPS with one stealth level a stealth game. Robin Hood has load of choices and the whole game is built around making them and their Consequences.

x'il said:
for instance; you have a quest to retrieve a certain powerful artifact from a heavily guarded place, now depending on the stats and skills of each build, the retrieval can be approached in different ways; a thief-type may go in sneaking, assassinating silently, lockpicking, a warrior-type may fight it's way in and out, a mage-type may mind-control some guard or beast to get the job done, or levitate undetected past the walls, a diplomat-type may bribe or convince some unhappy guard to get the artifact for him, or to let him in through the back door at midnight, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Type of build: Choice
Abilities(or lack thereof) of build: Consequence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top