Why do so many people here think First Person excludes RPG?

Role Playing Games are problematic by nature. From my experience, with both PnP and CRPGs, the player wants the skill and abilities of his character while ignoring the limitations. In PnP you get players arguing with the DM, what can be done in one action, what your character "should" be able to do, the moral hazard of player knowledge vs. character knowledge, etc. If a CRPG is first person, you think, I can put my reticule on that enemy's head, he is asleep, why can't I one shot him? RPGs place a numerical abstraction layer between the player and the game world, fundamentally breaking the immersion offered by first person perspective. In isometric, you can see behind walls, things your character shouldn't rightly know about. There has never been a perfect RPG; Role Playing Games are problematic by nature.

 

Re: Why do so many people here think First Person excludes R

My crazy idea is to combine a tactical FPS shooter with most your physical "skills" entirely dependent on your ability. Then lay a deep, branching INTERESTING, consequential (path decided by your choices) storyline where "side" quests are not minor soap opera episodes which have no effect on the outcome but can be 'forks' in the road etc. Think of a tactical shooter with 20 different ending. And when I say "different" I mean completely and utterly separated endings (and in game journeys). This game would either piss of RPG guys who don't like tactical FPS's or piss off tactical FPS guys who don't like deep games...OR it would be the best game ever created. I can dream...(and I do).

 

nemetoad , by that perspective every fps and point-and-click would be RPGs too because you're playing the role of a character inserted in some game-world right?

 

Fallout designed to emulate P&P rpgs. STOP. P&P rpgs Turn Based. STOP. Turn Based better in isometric. STOP. If you like to play turn based in first person, your call. STOP. if you like your skill to matter more than your stats, your call. STOP


Is it really THAT complicated ?

 

Sure, why not? Sounds absurd, but roleplaying is what, playing the role of someone else? Sure, in some twisted way you could consider Halo being you playing the role of MasterChief John 117. Whatever. Not the point of 1st person RPG vs. 3rd thread neither have many of my posts,actually. I apologize about that.

 

Then don't call it RPG neither tactical FPS. Call it differently, be creative.

BTW, you cannot make "the best game ever", it's impossible because to achieve it everyone should like it and call it the best game ever, but not everyone is the same. Some people like RPGs and FPSs, but some others like RPGs but hate FPSs, and others love strategy games, but hate other genders, etc, etc. You will never satisfy everyone, even if you make a game which can be played as all those styles (RPG, FPS, strategy), there will be always somone who will not like it or even hate it.

But to go back to the topic, I will just say that

When I played Morrowind for the first time, I wasn't feeling like "Role Playing". It was just a First Person Adventure with swords (FPwS- First Person with Swords), and it didn't feel like Fallout, or Baldurs Gate, or Arcanum, or Planescape:Torment. They all used ISO view for purpose, to make you feel like you are controling that person over there on your screen, a god-like feeling. And you needed to develop him in a way, so he will survive.

It's kinda like an acting, you can play a character which you are developing. An actor usually wants to see himself acting, so he understands if he does his role correctly. In FPP, you cannot see yourself acting, you have to record yourself, or look into the mirror.

That is why this is called "Role Playing", not "Playing Yourself" type of a game. And Iso or 3rd person view works with it just fine, just like when an actor is watching his own performance. A performance of a role he/she is playing.

 

It sounds like what you want is Virtual Realty. Which is a nice pipe dream nothing else.

RPGs be they pen & paper, live action or on the computer have rules. With Fantasy games you can perform magic... realism & player skill/knowledge don't enter into it. Science Fiction games are different in that what they allow was once science theory. Still it was only a theory and times change. Take Fallout, it is based on 50s SCIENCE! and yet we all enjoyed it to one degree or another.

Those fetch quests that everyone hates are what the lowest member of any group has to do. Which is usually the last person to join the group and they have to perform alot of them before they rise in the ranks. Do you really want to spend days to weeks raising your player skill? Play Dungeon Siege and you'll get a taste of that line of thought.

I think the problem lies more with what the game developers cann't think of. What I mean is the solutions which should work and yet don't due to lack of coding. Want to try blowing out a wall to go around a bunch of traps? Opps it is impossible to destroy that wall.

Until people can think of everything or true AI exists we are stuck with a degree of abstaction to our games. Even then I want character skill so I can be someone I'm not.

 

True, but you don't need to look at yourself to see how you develop. To keep with the actor metaphor, another way to check development is to see how others react. In truth, Fallout 1 and 2 both could use First person if someone decided to try it now. Couldn't use Fallout 3's engine of course, or at least it's setup. Wouldn't be a hard switch though.
Now if it were a game like Baldur's Gate or something, then First Person wouldn't work. Something like KOTOR's system would though. More or less the same, actually. Ah well.

 

<quote>Why do so many people here think First Person excludes RPG?</quote>

well I for one don't think 'perspective' of the camera has ANY influence on how I see a game.

here's the dumbed down version of my classifications (relevant to this subject)

<blockquote>Q: does game feature first person perspective
A: Yes

Q: does game basically come down to shooting at things
A: Yes

Q is game controlled by mouse + W.A.S.D
A: Yes

Outcome: see FPS game (examples; Doom 3, Farcry, Quake 4, Fallout 3)</blockquote>

nice and simple for that one lets try RPG now...


<blockquote>Q: does the game feature a camera which allows for best overall view of the game world.
A: Yes

Q: does game basically come down to stats and percentage based outcomes (as defined by the 'rules' of the game world), based purely on these stats (representative of character ability)
A: Yes

Q is game controlled by mouse and keyboard shortcuts for character sheet / inventory etc...
A: Yes

Outcome: see RPG game (examples; Fallout, Neverwinter Nights)</blockquote>

My MAIN gripe is that in Fallout 3 (as I have proven with video evidence in the past) the stats mean nothing. my 'character' supposedly had 9% in small guns (in the video I made and posted) yet with only 9%, a level of competency I'd equate to understanding what the word 'gun' means but having the same ability to fire a gun as a baby quadriplegic blind sloth covered in Vaseline... as I was saying...
With only 9% in small guns I was easily able to dispatch 3 supposedly wasteland savvy and raised by their wits raiders (game played on 'hard' difficulty) It is knowing this that completely breaks the whole 'this is a roleplay game' demeanour, quite frankly a character that would most likely forget to take the safety off wouldnt stand a chance in such a situation.

If a game disallows the rules of Role Play Games (i.e stat driven EVERYTHING) then quite frankly, no, it isn't a role play game, and in this circumstance, being that it cannot be classified as such, the closest category which best fits the game style is FPS.

Even GTA: san andreas had more role play in it than this (muscle building anyone?) and Doom 3 had deeper NPC's (anyone remember reading all those personal logs etc...)

THAT, my good sir is why I dislike FO3, not because of its camera perspective. Because it lacks the fundamental parts that make it in to any form of RPG.

 

^^ You said it best. I would say over 50 percent of so called RPG game's out now aren't even RPG's.

 

Now the question is.. Final Fantasy: WHERE DOES IT STAND?
Probably not with Fallout of course!

 

Well Final Fantasy is considered a JRPG. Final Fantasy games are pretty straight forward and linear, but at least you have character development and a true stat based gameplay. You can't just *Pew *Pew all the way through.

 

Yeah, you have to hit "Attack" and "Firaga" all the way through

 

Hey! I like strategy games AND girls!

Anyway, I'm sure this has been said many times, but all games are RPG's if you want to get down to it.

In the insane human desire to categorize everything, we say RPG's must have stats and levelling up. So I guess that's what I see as an RPG. If someone starts talking about why any game with stats and levelling up is NOT a true RPG, it's probably going to be one of those conversations that makes me want to hit a child.

So next time someone says an RPG has to have an isometric view, great dialog and wicked awesome choices, keep in mind some child might get smacked.

 

First Person vs 3rd Person is a big argument that will ALWAYS have people on either side. My opinion is this, you can do a first person RPG, its true! However there are some limitations.

The hard part about a first person RPG is finding that fine line between RPG and ACTION game. Games like 'Eye of the Beholder' veer very very deeply into the 'RPG' side, sometimes to the point of having the game feel tedious and clunky in a first person mode, however it IS still 'real time' based. Morrowwind and Oblivion both leaned towards the actiony side (the later more than the former).

Even the amazing Dues Ex was more 'shooter' than 'rpg' HOWEVER outside of combat the game was alot more RPG than shooter, which is one of the reasons why it was so good. The problem with Fallout is that the game relies heavily on the players ability to aim and move, more so than the characters ability, this negates the 'Role Playing' aspect of the game. The 'lock picking' minigames where actually quite fun in my opinion, and help immerse you into the world, HOWEVER they still relied more on the PLAYER than the CHARACTER and thus were inheirently flawed. Stats, Skill Checks, Equipment, and general Character Progression don't tend to take into account enough in the FPSRPG type genre, however if they DID more often than not we'd find ourselves frustrated and feeling cheated (Why did that shot miss 3 times in a row? I WAS PERFECTLY lined up on his head!)

This argument is a tough one, I personally love RPGs and I love FPS games, but each one has a different system for delivering a story. I find that mixing them is often difficult and ultimately unsatisfying.

 

Okay so, Final Fantasy: Linear, has pre-programed character development, but is considered an RPG because it has true stat based gameplay. However, unlike what you said you -can- just *pew *pew through it, since that's the only way to level up.

Fallout 3: Somewhat linear in the main quest, but branches out with all the sidequests. Considering what others have said, character development depends on how you play it. Also, almost everything is governed by stats. Even how well you handle a gun without VATS. *Pew *pew gameplay is the encouraged style of leveling up, but you can avoid most combat and -still- reach that level 20.

Fallout 1/2: Again, somewhat linear main quest. Has more options to handle things throughout it, but you still have a limit of three end results (You failed, you were evil, you were good mainly). Character development is also dependent on how you play, nothing more. Everything is stat-driven, very few things aren't. Can get to high levels without combat of course, but still more or less forced into it a lot, unless of course you know how to worm around it.

If anything, Fallout 3 is more of an RPG then Final Fantasy is. It's also first person! yay.... It's crime is being less limited by stats, but more limited by lacking choices.

 

Oh, so country music and nu metal are the same genre of music, because there are people singing and playing guitars?

Uh, roleplaying means playing someone else than yourself. That means his skill in various disciplines is diffrent than yours. How can you describe that diffrence otherwise than by statistics?

 

I'm not saying removing statistics completely, I'm sayng letting you determine the success-failure rather than a random dice. Dices simplify things, sure, but frankly they're overdone. I'd rather see a hybrid between "Do it yourself" and "Let the computer figure it out" - The balance isn't what Bethesda came up with, but to me it is a step. If you want me to get into it, I could - I have a good idea how I'd like to see things.

I just want something that says "You can try your hand at it, but at that skill your character has? you're more lilkely to shoot your eye out, kid." If roleplaying is playing someone else, then I'd rather play that person rather then just determine what he says and who he is. It's a simplified system that worked well back then, but today we have tons of games going off stats alone and letting the computer play the game for you, you just decide what lock to pick or what stat to raise.

Frankly, the best Stat-based game I've ever played was Quest for Glory

I look at it this way: Fallout 1, you start out as the one chosen to look for a water chip. Halfway through, you need to bring that back and go after the Master, or the game ends. You beat the master, blow him up, whatever. It's the same no matter what you do, or you get the game over of you becoming a mutant. The only thing that majorly changes depends on what you did OUTSIDE the main quest. That's where the freedom reigns.

A comparison would be... Chrono Trigger. You go through the game, the ending has many ways you can do it, but the end result is still the same with a few changes.

Or Halo as a shooter. Throughout levels, you have many paths you can choose from, but the end result is still the same. Linearity with choices along the way.

I really can't speak much about Fallout 2's because I haven't beaten it yet, but there's still the linear and static events that cannot ever change, cutting back on your freedom to about the same level as Fallout 3. The only difference is side quests and the number of ways you can avoid blowing someone's head off. And note: This isn't because it's isometric of first person, it's how the game was set up.

It makes me think of Soul Reaver, which you can consider a third person adventure game of course. "Free will is an illusion."

 

That is one of the worst things in Fallout 3. The proportions are diferent, but in Fallout 2, running around with less than 40% small guns and shooting at raiders would mean a horrible, painful death. In Fallout 3, someone who barely know what the hell is a gun, can somehow defeat savvy raiders ,who probrably shot a lot of people. In Fallout 2, charging at someone with a pointy stick and no skill to back you up ALWAYS ended in bloody death.