The Best... RPGs!

[Ubereil]

Ah, you're aware of the obvious inconsistency in your first post, I see. ;D

Übereil

[Elliot Kane]

It needs a 'usually' or a 'mostly' added to the EXP section. Beyond that, it's functional. Was never intended to be the perfect definition, just a guide

[Ubereil]

Yeah, I'm just fooling about anyway.

Übereil

[Elliot Kane]

Figured you were just bored Ube, honestly. Then figured 'what the heck!' ;D

[mysterd]

Apr 18, 2010 15:41:53 GMT Elliot Kane said:

Which is why I included Overlord on my list which has no EXP of any kind, Ube

Do read the whole post, there's a good chap! ;D

See, this is the problem w/ the whole RPG genre tag, as a whole. It's too generic of a title - as there's really so many different kinds of games that are considered RPG's. Let me elaborate.

There really needs to be some sort of separation of what's what for my list of two things that I consider RPG elements - since many games of other genres are now dabbling into element #1 or element #2 of RPG's. More so than ever, we're seeing games in other genres even dabble into having a little bit of both RPG elements.

We're seeing FPS's dwelving into other genre. FPS games like Borderlands are also dwelving into the ARPG genre; STALKER series is also jumping a little bit into both elements of the RPG genre.

Batman: AA which primarily is an action game also has some RPG elements - namely, a little bit of element #1.

Oh, the elements I consider RPG's...

Element #1 - Upgrading
RPG's include upgrading elements and leveling-up elements - in which you can upgrade and/or swap-out your character's or entire party's stats, skills, abilities, and equipment.

ARPG's take this element to the extreme of extremes - see Diablo 2 and Titan Quest.

Element #2 - Decision-Making
RPG's involve decision-making, in which whatever you decide to do in a quest/mission/dialogue tree, will change the outcome of the actual quest; gameworld and its inhabitants; and the final outcome of the game's main quest.

Most of Bioware's RPG games, Fallout series, The Witcher, and Planescape: Torment do this heavily.

Is There A Solution?
Each element of the RPG genre really needs its own genre-name and name. B/c really, people consider Final Fantasy games RPG's (they have element #1, most of the time; and also strategy game elements - the new FF13 might muddy that whole formula up quite a bit, though). Some people consider Diablo 2 a RPG - when really, it's a ARPG (we really need a new name for this special ARPG genre of games w/ a heavy emphasis on element #1). Many people consider games like DAO a RPG - which has both RPG elements - plus also a lot of strategy elements, too. Other games like Oblivion and Fallout 3 are really genre-hopping - with First-Person Action elements and most definitely both RPG elements.

I mean, really - this whole genre-tagging thing is getting messed-up, as more and more games start to genre-cross.

[Elliot Kane]

I completely agree, D. I think the worst mistake role players ever made was to allow the tag to be used on ARPGs and JRPGs, when neither is in truth anything to do with actual role playing at all. As things now stand, 'RPG' has been used to describe such a broad spectrum of games that the designation has become virtually meaningless.

And don't even get me started on 'RPG elements', which is even more meaningless and serves only to confuse the issue even more. By some definitions of RPG I've seen used, the Total War games could be counted! (The generals, for those of you wondering. They are all named characters who you can gain experience for, and who gain character traits depending on what you make them do. Win a battle or two and your general even 'levels up', becoming a better general. Are the TW games even remotely RPGs? Of course not!).

I think it all started with computer programmers reading the tabletop RPG rule books and making the fundamental error of thinking 'Role Playing' was the rule set, rather than realising that the rules are simply a framework for the game(s) and are in fact very much secondary. There can't be a single experienced tabletop role player who would not love to dump the rule book entirely, if only it were possible, in favour of developing character and story. Because the heart of true role playing has nothing at all to do with levelling up, gaining better equipment or number crunching: it's all about the characters and the story.

That's why Dragon Age: Origins scores so highly on the 'RPG-ometer' - nothing to do with the combat, and everything to do with all those character interactions, especially the conversations in camp. You have so much choice of how to develop your character as a person that it can be nothing but.

But in computer game terms these days, there's little that could NOT be classed as an RPG, at least in some sense. It's pretty crazy.

[Ubereil]

I personally believe one of the key elements of an RPG is the ability to choose how you solve a problem. Diablo 2 doesn't really have this. I mean, should I kill the enemy using fire or ice doesn't really qualify as "choosing how to solve the problem" in my book. The classical sollutions is by fighting, sneaking or talking yourself past an encounter.

Most RPG's of today have just fighting and then instead try to give you the ability to choose different outcomes in dialogues. Those choices are important too but they're not the whole package IMO.

Übereil

[mysterd]

Apr 19, 2010 1:10:05 GMT Elliot Kane said:

I completely agree, D. I think the worst mistake role players ever made was to allow the tag to be used on ARPGs and JRPGs, when neither is in truth anything to do with actual role playing at all. As things now stand, 'RPG' has been used to describe such a broad spectrum of games that the designation has become virtually meaningless.

For the most part, JRPG's - most of the Final Fantasy series here is my example; except FF13, which really muddies things way up - is really a turn-based strategy game on a much smaller scale.

FF13, God knows what the hell that is - Strategy/RPG/Action, maybe? It's starting to even jump a little bit more into the action genre now.

And don't even get me started on 'RPG elements', which is even more meaningless and serves only to confuse the issue even more. By some definitions of RPG I've seen used, the Total War games could be counted! (The generals, for those of you wondering. They are all named characters who you can gain experience for, and who gain character traits depending on what you make them do. Win a battle or two and your general even 'levels up', becoming a better general. Are the TW games even remotely RPGs? Of course not!).

Well, a lot of those linear strategy games have those upgrading RPG elements (element #1) - as you're upgrading bases, squads, etc etc. It's just, these elements usually don't change the outcome of the game - these elements are used to enhance the strategy aspect of the game, in which mostof the time you'll be doing strategy element.

Also, here's where things get even muddier. Let's look at a game like Heavy Rain - which I haven't played, but have heard so much about. Heavy Rain is basically another Indigo Prophecy type-of-game, from what I read. Heavy Rain, probably by most, would be considered a pure-adventure game - even though it really doesn't have puzzles. It has ZERO of the trappings of RPG element #1, but element #2 is written all over it - as it is really all about decision-making (and often timed). Same could probably be said about Shadow of Destiny, as well - even though it does have puzzles, most are quite simple to figure out; if you can figure them out in the time-limit.

I think it all started with computer programmers reading the tabletop RPG rule books and making the fundamental error of thinking 'Role Playing' was the rule set, rather than realising that the rules are simply a framework for the game(s) and are in fact very much secondary. There can't be a single experienced tabletop role player who would not love to dump the rule book entirely, if only it were possible, in favour of developing character and story. Because the heart of true role playing has nothing at all to do with levelling up, gaining better equipment or number crunching: it's all about the characters and the story.

Granted, I never played any table-top games...

But, I think the rule-set (element #1) were there to help use WAY more emphasis on the decision-making stuff (element #2).

But, like you said - something got messed-up along the way, when games started pushing RPG's in all kinds of different directions and giving them the generic RPG tag - there's the ARPG route (Diablo); the ARPG route which has some of the decision-making RPG element #2 (Silverfall); the strategy-RPG route (Freedom Force); etc etc - and they are all calling themselves RPG's.

It's kinda...crazy.

That's why Dragon Age: Origins scores so highly on the 'RPG-ometer' - nothing to do with the combat, and everything to do with all those character interactions, especially the conversations in camp. You have so much choice of how to develop your character as a person that it can be nothing but.

But in computer game terms these days, there's little that could NOT be classed as an RPG, at least in some sense. It's pretty crazy.

DAO is a RPG-strategy game, if you ask me. It has both the RPG elements very heavily. The strategy elements are very heavy, as well - but they just don't have the huge scale wars of 50+ troops on both sides duking it out like in other pure strategy game.

Something like say Mass Effect 2 - I'd probably call a shooter-RPG. There's definitely both RPG elements there, for sure - but, it feels and plays more so like a shooter than Mass Effect 1 did. It's more of an evolution and of what games like the original Deus Ex and Vampire: Bloodlines were going for.

Eventually, we might just have to stop using tags entirely - and do how movies do thing. We can call Mass Effect 2 instead maybe just a damn science-fiction/drama. Meanwhile, Gears of War is...well...still action.