I'm almost inclined to agree there but that rings more to me like "traditional rpg", where the characters stats determined everything. For example because the block skill is not in the characters control but in the players now doesn't make it less of a pure roleplaying game at all, might add action to the mix but doesn't mean you are roleplaying any less. Just my .02.

I doubt we'll ever see a game like that on the computer ever again. They just don't fit into the new 3d environments very well. They were fun, though. I particularly enjoyed Champions of Krynn and it's sequels. I also do enjoy the more modern non-pure RPGs, too, though.

:icecream: I got distracted, sorry.

Yes, I would pick up the game regardless of what it is called. However, someone with only a casual interest in the game might not buy the game. If I knew little or nothing about Skyrim, and I saw it advertised as an action/adventure game or as a dance game, there is a good chance I would ignore it.

TES series (mostly Oblivion and Skyrim) are the only TRUE RPGs because they allow any decision. In ME and ME2, sure they gave you choices, but you had a limited number(2 almost always) and you couldnt do ANYTHING compared to Oblivion.

An action RPG is not a pure RPG by virtue of the fact that it has elements of an action game. You even have to specify that it's an action RPG.

A game not being a pure RPG does not mean that it is a bad game, it's just not the old-school dice-rolling turn-based YON ORC HATH TAKEN SIX DAMAGE, THOU HAST SLAIN THE ORC, THOU ART VICTORIOUS kinda game. ME2, for instance, is pretty terrible at being an RPG, but it's a very enjoyable game and thus a pretty damn good one, massive plot holes aside.

Ideally, you should determine everything. Action included. But it is hard to apply restrictions in a table-top game, so stats served that. In a video game all stats can be handled by the game world so you can be introduced to the action you deserve. Game world has all the rules needed. There are really so few restrictions left, the ones you want to apply personally like roleplaying a one armed person which you can achieve by not using one of your hands. Or someone hates gold and don't touch it. Demanding the game to stop the player from touching gold is silly though but it would have been cool if the game lets you change your physical appearance beyond normal, like a blind eyed orc(although I'm not sure what kind of gameplay restriction it can possess).


For some roleplaying turned into a job, it didn't even have roleplaying in it. It was more like this:
http://www.sz-wholesale.com/uploadFiles/upimg9%5CElectronic-Pet--Tamaguchi--_43379.jpg

Immersion became a curse word for them. They wanted to separate themselves from the character as much as possible, complete opposite of roleplaying. They were so bad at roleplaying, they couldn't even roleplay personality restrictions, they wanted it to be applied from outside sources.

---

When tabletops turned into video games, for some it didn't really work, they started to weight their preferences to a good story instead, trading story creating roleplay immersion to story reading immersion. And some game companies loved that because it is a lot easier to create linear games than an open-world ones. And the start of linear games begun with mechanics reminiscent of wargames.

At one point, all left was ancient mechanics and there were no roleplaying to be found. Right now even CoD has character progression... You figure.

Sad...

I'm more angry though because they're still arrogant to use RPG while they have only some G parts of old RPGs. The ancient mechanics adopted from strategy war games can be dropped now with the advance in computer technologies.


Bethesda should keep RP and redefine G part by using computer's capabilities to model a world better than few stats and basic formulas can. I fully support them in this course and thank them for not selling out roleplaying freedom for linear/multilinear storytelling immersion.

:tes:

Wow. That's just... wow. I don't even know where to begin with that. I don't think you could have possibly missed the point of divorcing player skill from character skill more if you tried. Old CRPGs didn't use turn-based and stat-based systems because they couldn't handle real-time, it was a deliberate design choice. The first video game ever, Space War was entirely real-time. Immersion really has nothing to do with perspective or camera work, either. The best way to provide immersion is to create a believable world that holds up well under scrutiny, such that everything within it is internally consistent and makes logical sense within its own rules. No plot holes, no stupid roundabout retconning to justify poor writing, no half-assed world building. Roleplaying, likewise, has [censored] all to do with the perspective, though the argument can be made that traditional RPGs adhere more to the point of roleplaying, in that everything is about your character's role, and your reaction time, perception, and aim do not allow you to compensate for poor skills. If your guy svcks at punching people then he svcks at punching people, and no amount of kiting or exploitation of special moves will fix that.

But to compare traditional CRPGs to Tamagotchis... that's just insulting. Not to mention arrogant and pretentious. A person's tastes in video games really don't dictate their intelligence. You're not better than people who like things that you don't like. Kindly stop talking out of your ass, please. It's unpleasant.

I didn't do any of that. :blink: I'm criticizing some gamers and late video games. NOT traditional RPGs.

Edit: Oh, my "some"s are all different. They are not the same "some"s. It is two part actually. I made a line and used better wording.

Not exactly what I meant but I see your point. I meant that because there is action in it doesn't make it less pure RPG as you are still roleplaying which is the core of an RPG (duh), action is simply another facet to name RPG. I wasn't labeling it as action RPG I was saying that action can just as easily be a part of RPG and that it is no less pure for it so long as roleplaying is still there. Stats determining everything isn't what I would deem as necessary criteria for pure, which brings me to the main point above all that I tried to make initially that was that a pure rpg is not a definitive thing it is personal opinion.

You implied that separating player skill from character skill was inherently a bad thing, that only ignorant grognards clinging to the past could possibly enjoy, and that not having minigames for skills or action-heavy combat diminished immersion and roleplaying. It's difficult for me to take anything away from the latter half of your post but derision. If I misinterpreted you, I apologize, but that's just how I saw it.



Something that's pure by definition lacks qualities that do not define it. Pure gold has nothing in it but gold; if you add things that are not gold to it, it is no longer pure. Carrying this logic over to the vidya gaems side of things, it is possible to have an action game that has no RPG elements, or an RPG that has no action elements. These things could be accurately described as "pure" examples of the genre in question. Mixing them together pretty much negates that. In truth, roleplaying is about stepping outside of yourself and taking on a particular character, playing their role, hence the term role-playing. If you play a stupid character but can solve the puzzles presented to you using your own intellect (or even by looking up the solutions online), then you're not really playing the role of a character too stupid to figure said puzzles out.

And the thing is, quality does not play into it at all. It's very possible to have an action RPG that is very good at being both an action game and an RPG. But it's not a pure action game, or a pure RPG. It's both genres, after all.

If you are playing a role it is an RPG, you don't need a variety of statistics to play a role in a game, you don't even need the ability to create your own character. Games such as GTA and Thief are RPGs for example - they're not considered as such as much as fantasy based games but they are.

Attributes, leveling up/grinding, classes, and so on are recent things attributed to the genre simply due to their popularity in CRPGs - but they don't make an RPG and RPG.

They're really not. If we follow the logic that playing a pre-defined role makes an RPG, then for god's sake, Pong is an RPG wherein you play the role of a little paddle that bounces a little ball. I know that the term "RPG" is something the industry slaps on pretty much everything, but if we take it that far then it just becomes utterly meaningless. It's like saying Morrowind is a racing game because you can outrun your enemies.

Exactly.

To me, an RPG is defined by two elements

1) Controlled, statistical customisation of your Character/s

2) The ability to affect in game plotline and events through your actions and dialogue

Mass Effect 2 was reasonably strong on the second element. but weak on the first. Conversely an old school dungeon crawler would focus on stats, but have almost no influence over plot and events.

Even with the loss of some attributes, there are still more than enough stats in the TES series (18 skills + 3 attributes + perks) to justify its inclusion as an RPG, though it fares much less well on the choice and consequences.

I'd say Mass Effect 2 was exceedingly poor in the second department. Most of your choices had absolutely zero impact on the main plot. Hell, the biggest determiner of how the ending sequence plays out has more to do with how much of the game you actually completed than anything else, and your prior actions in the game (apart from loyalty missions, some of which were literally impossible to fail) do not in any way determine who lives or dies. Rather, who you choose to do which job does. And this is really the only part of the game where your choices matter, but it's very direct and does not actually affect the game world very much. If Tali dies, then you don't invoke the ire of the Quarians (though you might in ME3). Nothing happens. Nothing, apart from her now being absent from the ship. Compare this to, say, New Vegas, where if you piss off the Legion you can't really get their ending, now can you?

Trying to find a solid consensus on what is an RPG?

Good luck.

Yeah, New Vegas was excellent on both counts, though I was looking for an example of an RPG that was good in one area and weaker in another. What I find interesting is that while a game that only has stats will definitely be classified as an RPG, a game with no stats, but excellent choices and consequences would not be considered an RPG (though I think it probably should)

Well, it wouldn't really be considered an RPG because your character would always have the same abilities, and thus all the choices you get are always the same. Dragon's Lair loosely follows that definition, and it's definitely not an RPG.

The issue isn't over its genre. The issue is that most of the changes are simply to streamline the game and dumb it down for wider appeal, while killing the spirit of the series. That's what people worry about. Oblivion was a huuuuuge step back from Morrowind, and people fear Skyrim is even worse.

Don't apologize. I totally [censored] up the timeline and couldn't express different groups.

"Ideally, you should determine everything. Action included."
When I say action, I don't mean perspectives. I mean literal(or roleplay) action. When I roleplay my fighter, I do it from a dream person perspective(a combination of first and third that is so blurry,you can't tell the difference. ) and feel the action when I slash an orc's head. Action is included. I meant this action. The chain of posts might suggest that but I wasn't mentioning skill separation but character separation...

My Tamagotchi example is not about games, it is about gamers who don't want the immersion of roleplaying but only control aspect of it. This is not separating character skill and player skill. They want to keep player skill of controlling a character but they don't value immersion or roleplaying by separating themselves from character too much. I criticize only them and I think my Tamagotchi example is spot on. If you're not one of them, don't get offended please. (I don't criticize Tamagotchi games or Tamagotchi players here or linear games or players that enjoy linear games.)

How?

This is not as important as is how the game reacts to those choices; and right now it's unclear as to what those many options may be. I have a hunch that they will all be special abilities, and not really define the PC with any depth. Many RPGs maintain an aspect of balance by requiring sacrifice for extreme ability (scores); This ensures weaknesses with the strengths. I just can't imagine any negatives with the perks... I think this will just be a "so what free candy do you want next?" sort of deal; instead of "well you'll have to pay for that before you can have any".

TES III and to a greater extend IV were so candy land choosing 50 out of 280 is pretty much paying a lot when compared to old games, the exact number is 230+ something. (I see what you're saying, you should realize this is quite the evolution or a return to roots for this series.)

Please do not utter the blasphemous name of DA2 in the same sentence as Skyrim...lmao Jk Jk
No really I had to force myself through DA2 to the end like a friggin root canol What a piece of garbage that game turned out to be.