Final Fantasy fans explain what 'real' RPGs are

[Limorkil]

Well I couldn't make any sense out of that thread. Its two people arguing about different yet similar sounding things, like one person arguing that Apple makes better computers than IBM while the other argues that apples make for a better pie than peaches.

I agree that "Roleplaying Game" is a very fuzzy term these days. There must be more to it than just playing a role, since most games have a central character that represents your role, even FPS games. I don't agree with the categorization of "Traditional RPGs" versus "Console RPGs" because I've played console-only games that felt more like a 'traditional' pen-and-paper RPG than many PC games. Kotor is an example of a game that is both a console RPG and a traditional RPG, since it gives you most of the options of a traditional RPG but also have the fairly linear development of a console RPG. I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that one category is better than the other, since the categories are loosely defined and there are good and bad games in each. I consider Kotor a good game, but I do not really consider it a good RPG.

Personally, I see "RPG" as a three-dimensional space defined by character customization, character control and character freedom.

Customization is the ability to shape your characters appearance and abilities, which you could view simply as the "roll-up" options when you start a new game. The more options you have, the more you get to create your own character as opposed to being given a character by the developers. Even though playing any character is roleplaying in the broadest sense, I think being given more choices makes for a better RPG experience. I also think that being able to control the development of your characters abilities is an important factor in customization.

Control is your ability to have your character accomplish goals in a manner that fits your view of the character. A simple dungeon crawler game may nominally be a RPG because it allows character customization, but if all you can do with the characters is fight in different styles then the RPG nature is diminished. I think the argument over turn-based versus realtime is all to do with control, since turn-based generally allows you more choices of action. Of course, a realtime game can still be a RPG, if it gives you control. If a turn-based game made all the choices for you then it would be no better an RPG than a realtime game that did the same. I dislike when developers confuse turn-based/realtime with manual/automatic because they do not have to be the same thing. Outside of combat, control also includes being able to accomplish goals by varied means depending on your characters personality and training. Maybe your character would rather talk than fight, or achieve his goals via stealth rather than direct confrontation.

Freedom is your ability to think and act like your character would as opposed to how the developers think you should think/act. A game could have a huge number of character customization options and a lot of choices, but if all you are doing is being led from point A to point B to point C then you are really just participating in a story rather than roleplaying a character. If the story develops the exact same way regardless of who your character is then the game is not a very good example of an RPG. This is the one dimension where many so-called RPGs fall down and end up being dungeon hack games or adventure games. They might still be RPGs, and excellent games, but not excellent RPGs. By this yardstick, many games that think they are RPGs fall short, and in fact there are very few good RPGs. Like it or not, I think this is true.

You will notice that I said nothing about story, dialogue, AI, world-size or many other factors that people consider important to an RPG. While all these things do help make a good game, I do not think that you need them for an RPG. Take the story, for example, which is something that many people cite as a key factor in making a good RPG. Going back to old pen-and-paper games, you will often find that a good story can get in the way of a good roleplaying game. A plot often requires characters to be in the right place at the right time and to respond in the right way for the story to work. IMO, in a RPG the player(s) write the story with their actions. Going back to "traditional" and "console" RPGs, that might be what people are arguing about - is the character greater than the story or is the story greater than the character? I think games like the FF series put the story first, whereas Fallout puts the character first. Both styles make for a good game, but my definition of what I think makes a better RPG has the character writing the story and not the other way around.

The above is also why I think Kotor was a good game but not a good RPG. You have to have played the game, or at least read a complete walkthrough, to understand. Kotor is a story about a particular character that you semi-customize and control, but is ultimately not YOUR character but Bioware's character. A Kotor-fan could argue that Bioware only gives you a background and you fill in all the details and control his/her actions during the game. True, but the fact that my character's background is not my own massively lessens the RPG experience IMO.

I think that the truth is that many people think they want a great RPG, whereas what they are really looking for is a great story-based game. A great game can have a great story, and a great RPG can have a great story, but just because you have a great story doesn't mean you have a great RPG.

 

[dojoteef]

Sarvis, I have to say your last post was very coherent and you went the route of not flaming in your response. I have to say I came off a bit assholish so now I guess I will have to play nice as well. Come on, why didn't you take the bait, I wanted to get a nice little flame war going .

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

In other news, Otaku_Hanzo is OLD.

LOL... well, maybe so, but Samuel Clemens said it best:

"I may grow old, but I will never grow up."

Words to live by.

 

[Sarvis]

Ok, in my last reply to you I said I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "traditional" so at this point I need you to explain before we go any further...

I _thought_ it basically meant old school games such as the original Bard's Tale or Pool of Radiance, but now you are maybe using it to refer to "western" style RPGS? Or PnP RPGs?

Gotta know man...

You have to really stop calling them "Western Style" RPGs. It doesn't take a "Western mindset" to come up with a game like Fallout for the same reason it wouldn't take an "Eastern mindset" to come out with a console RPG.

The developers worked with what resource had been allocated to them, and it just so happened that Japan was much bigger on the console scene than it was on the PC scene. Developing a traditional style RPG for the console would have never worked due to the inherent limitations with the input and so forth, so they created adventure games with utterly simplistic tactical turn based combat in order to cope with the limitations.

You'll note how games like Final Fantasy Tactics, and the more recently released Phantom Brave which share similar but slightly more tactical gameplay than X-Com are selling a lot better than any Final Fantasy ripoffs currently in the market. Console gamers enjoy tactical experiences, too, and with the limitation suffered by old consoles alleviated, developers have a chance to develop games like the aforementioned ones and sell them with a great degree of success in the market. I do not think that KOEI's strategy games which were originally on the PC would be anywhere as popular as they are if console gamers were only interested in linear adventures.

There's a small number of Taiwanese turn-based strategy developers whose games sell very well in the local Asian market, and with good reason: people enjoy them more than crap like Kingdom Hearts.

While we're still on this subject, you'll want to take a look at how FF Tactics is still one of the highest grossing games on the GBA platform, short of the Pokemon titles. You should also take note of this game:
http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/562/562405p1.html - That old PC game SimTower goes to the GBA SP. I have no doubt it'll sell ridiculously well given the strategy-starved ownerbase of the GBA.

Exitium, you still didn't answer the question. I used the term "western RPG" (In quotes because I am not sure what else to call RPGs that primarily originate over here!) because I didn't know what you meant by "traditional RPG." And again, it will be pretty damn hard to move any discussion forward if all you are going to do is chastise me for using "western RPG" instead of explaining what tradtitional RPG means...

As for Tactical RPGs, yes I am quite familiar with them... though I didn't realize Phantom Brave was so popular. FFTA isn't nearly as good as FFT in my opinion, but was still a good game overall...

I'm also not very convinced computer RPGs are necessarily providing very tactical combat these days. That was certainly a major shortcoming in NWN anyway, and even though Baldur's Gate was fun it took on a sort of RTS feel for me... What little I played of Arcanum didn't seem overly tactical either, especially since they use AI henchmen which I absolutely hate!

Perhaps the best thing about ToEE is that they go back to tactical turn based combat...

 

[Sarvis]

<b>littleboy</b>

You act as if japanese console RPGs and western computer RPGs had some hugely different inspiration. If you are right, of course, you should be able to point out what that separate inspiration was...

However, I suspect that if japanese console RPGs weren't originally inspired by D&D they were inspired by the roguelikes or something else which HAD been inspired by D&D...

So I will still maintain that they are based off the same thing, only they went off in a seperate direction.

Something to think about: The last time I was going to play a D&D campaign the DM _assigned_ you your character and you had to play it, much like in console RPGs. Would that have been any less role playing just because _I_ didn't choose the character?


<b>Limorkil</b>

There's a problem though, a problem which is fast becoming a running theme of this place. You are defining an RPG upon a set of features which can exist in <i>any</i> genre.

Deus Ex is an FPS which gave you the ability to handle situations with stealth rather than combat if you choose, or possibly even talking (but not sure...) This fits your category of Control.

Many games are allowing Customization lately, at least to some extent. Wrestling games have always typically given you the option to create your own wrestler with customized appearance and stats. Another thing that can be done in _any_ style of game.

Freedom... well, look at games such as Spiderman 2 or GTA:SA where you have almost complete freedom to do whatever you want. Frankly in both games I spend more time just screwing around than actually accomplishing missions... much like real life actually...

Since ALL of those are equally viable options in almost any genre it is not a great idea to use them as a definition of RPGs. They may be things you really love to see in an RPG, but you'd probably also really love to see them in an FPS or Flight Sim or something... heh.

<b>dojoteef</b>

Heh... sorry to disappoint.

I _generally_ try not to flame people though, I've just been in a bad mood for the last couple of weeks with the election and all...

 

[LlamaGod]

You're an idiot Sarvis. GTA is linear as hell.

Just because you can run around doing pointless things whenever doesnt mean the game is non-linear like an RPG. Hell, I call it 'GTA Linearity', and a PC game to be like it exactly is Morrowind.

And what a surprise! Morrowind sucks.

And for wrestling games, the custom wrestler tools are just graphical. Yeah, there are stats, but they totally different from those in RPGs. In Wrestling games, they just keep going higher and making you better. In RPGs, you have to plan your raises and good RPGs have skills based around them and various things like that (like Fallout). Where stats are a representation of your character and not just how much damage you do.

Deus Ex gave you 3 linear choices and they all led to the same place. This isnt the same as non-linear, dont be so easily fooled.

You really did earn that Illiterate tag.

 

[crufty]

Console RPG : Wing Commander :: PC RPG : Elite

What I've always detested about Console RPG's was not so much their linearity, but the random monster battles that just crop up out of nowhere (ie FF). And yes, I didn't like it in Bards Tale either. There was nothing like being beset upon by 4 groups of 99 Bezerkers when your remaining character only has 1 hit point.

 

[Limorkil]

Sarvis: Sorry if I did not explain myself very well. IMO an RPG would have to have all three elements: customization, control and freedom. The extent to which a game has all three defines its RPGness. Its a fuzzy definition of RPG, I know, but realistically thats the best we can do with the term. Its also my criteria, based on how I evaluate whether I will like a supposed RPG game, and it may be fuckingmonkeybollocks for everyone else.

 

[dojoteef]

Sarvis, the way you are describing things, a lot of strategy games could easily be considered RPGs. What your describing as an RPG can be said for the basic mechanism underlying Silent Storm. So would you say that it is a full fledged RPG?

 

[Sarvis]

<b>LlamaGod</b>

No one was talking about linearity, nor did I ever say GTA wasn't linear. It's storyline IS quite linear, though you can take missions in any order you want...

I was saying that within the game you have a LOT of freedom to do things you want. That is all.

So either you misread my post and your little jab at my rank becomes quite ironic, or you are putting words in my mouth and setting up a straw man argument.

Why not just try to form an honest point?


As for the wrestling, well... that is what limorkill was talking about. He specifically stated choosing the characters appearance and some starting attributes.

Illiterate indeed...

<b>crufty</b>

Though there are many computer RPGs I have not played, it seems like random encounters were a hallmark of most the early ones...

I don't mind random encounters at all, most of the time, and if you are at one hit point just drink a healing potion! You almost always have zillions of them just sitting there... heh.

I should mention that there are a _few_ console RPGs which eschew random encounters though, such as Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter.

<b>Limorkill</b>

No, I knew you meant that. I think I may have actually been unclear. I gave examples as to how those elements had been used one at a time in certain games, however I was trying to point out that those elements could ALL be placed into a single game that <i>isn't</i> an RPG by any other measure. Really GTA:SA is only missing a little from the customization and control categories. You can, in fact, control your characters appearance to a fairly large extent through exercising, getting haircuts and buying different clothes. You even develop skill with weapons and vehicles you use the most and have many other attributes to fill out and train.

In control you basically are just lacking stealth. You _can_ sneak around to an extent, but most of the time you end up having to kill everyone and cops can magically find you almost anywhere.

<b>dojoteef</b>

A lot of strategy games <i>are</i> RPGs. Well, Tactical RPGs really. Final Fantasy Tactics is certainly an RPG by my definition, but it puts on that extra layer of tactics to earn the Tactical genre tag. With much simpler battles there would not be much difference between that game and FFX-2 except for the storyline!

I _think_ I played about 5 minutes of the Silent Storm demo before decided I didn't want to anymore, so I can't judge it's rpg-ness really. I wouldn't say it was a pure RPG though, probably a Tactical RPG.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'm not really sure you can qualify Final Fantasy games as RPGs, since nearly every aspect of the role you might want to carve out is defined for you. You always start those games with your life all laid out for you. You have a name. You have a job you've been doing. You probably have a girlfriend when you start. You probably have a best friend, but don't get too attached to him because he's probably going to die or turn evil on you. You have gobs and gobs of pre-defined relationships with just about everyone in the game's starting location. You have a defined backstory, probably something about how your parents died.

Any life changing event is going to happen anyway, so long as you're far enough along to run across it. It's not by your choice, it's part of the script. You've just beaten the 12th boss, so it's time for you to go from Dragoon to Paladin. You can't betray your goody goody friends and be evil, but they can do that to you, if the script calls for it, regardless of your actions. If an NPC leaves you, it's not because of any of your actions because you have no choice in them, it's because the story calls for it.

It's just a story with some level gaining. No choices, no defining yourself, nothing.

 

[AlanC9]

The above is also why I think Kotor was a good game but not a good RPG. You have to have played the game, or at least read a complete walkthrough, to understand. Kotor is a story about a particular character that you semi-customize and control, but is ultimately not YOUR character but Bioware's character. A Kotor-fan could argue that Bioware only gives you a background and you fill in all the details and control his/her actions during the game. True, but the fact that my character's background is not my own massively lessens the RPG experience IMO.

Presumably that means Planescape:Torment isn't a good RPG either. You've got just as little background control, and even less freedom in the ending (unless you deliberately lose the game).

Edit: not making an argument; just an observation.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

What I've always detested about Console RPG's was not so much their linearity, but the random monster battles that just crop up out of nowhere (ie FF). And yes, I didn't like it in Bards Tale either. There was nothing like being beset upon by 4 groups of 99 Bezerkers when your remaining character only has 1 hit point.

Interesting. What turned me off on console RPGs forever was playing a spiky-haired, angsty teenage boy named Cloud (ie FF7), and being forced to endure his immature, badly-written prattle throughout the entire game. Finally, I couldn't take it anymore and I just broke the disc and threw it in the trash. I can't handle unsophisticated garbage that panders to a market of three-year-old console whiners.

And to be perfectly honest, I can't imagine the Japanese people, as smart as they are, making such a terrible game. Unless they intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and doped the game down specifically for such a purpose. Clever marketing and and all...

EDIT:

Just as a disclaimer, I'll say I don't hate consoles completely, and there are a few games I've enjoyed on consoles (Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil, Beyond Good & Evil, ICO, etc.). However, I do happen to hate the ignorant fanboys that games like Final Fantasy attract, and people who think that PCs aren't a true gaming machine and wont give them a chance because they can't handle dealing with that many buttons on a keyboard.

 

[Limorkil]

<b>Limorkill</b>

No, I knew you meant that. I think I may have actually been unclear. I gave examples as to how those elements had been used one at a time in certain games, however I was trying to point out that those elements could ALL be placed into a single game that <i>isn't</i> an RPG by any other measure. Really GTA:SA is only missing a little from the customization and control categories. You can, in fact, control your characters appearance to a fairly large extent through exercising, getting haircuts and buying different clothes. You even develop skill with weapons and vehicles you use the most and have many other attributes to fill out and train.

In control you basically are just lacking stealth. You _can_ sneak around to an extent, but most of the time you end up having to kill everyone and cops can magically find you almost anywhere.

I cannot comment on that because I have never played or even seen GTA:SA. It sounds like more of an RPG than a lot of other games that are called RPGs. Being a roleplaying game has absolutely nothing to do with story, setting, being turn-based etc.. But, lets face it, what constitutes a RPG has more to do with what the most popular games that call themselves RPGs are like and not what the letters "RPG" stand for. If story-based games like Kotor and the FF series want to call themselves RPGs then eventually that is what "RPG" will mean. I'm pretty sure thats what many people think an RPG is.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

I cannot comment on that because I have never played or even seen GTA:SA. It sounds like more of an RPG than a lot of other games that are called RPGs. Being a roleplaying game has absolutely nothing to do with story, setting, being turn-based etc.. But, lets face it, what constitutes a RPG has more to do with what the most popular games that call themselves RPGs are like and not what the letters "RPG" stand for. If story-based games like Kotor and the FF series want to call themselves RPGs then eventually that is what "RPG" will mean. I'm pretty sure thats what many people think an RPG is.

San Andreas is more of an RPG than most RPGs nowadays. Much of the gameplay is something we used to see in old school RPGs (feeding your characters, freedom to wander and take quests, etc.). What differentiates San Andreas from RPGs, however, is the lack of attachment to the main character. You have few choices to develop or customize him, and in the end, you really don't feel much for him as a character.

Also, the plot-line is fairly set in stone.

 

[Sarvis]

<b>Saint_Proverbius</b>

You've obviously avoided reading anything I wrote so far in the last several threads I've participated in.

It does not matter that there are no choices and no defining yourself. There were no choices and no defining yourself in any of the earliest RPGs, perhaps because computers were not capable of it yet.

The earliest RPGs only earned that title because they were attempts at recreating true RPGs like D&D on the computer, and for <i>no other reason</i>. What was capable of being carried onto computer at the time where the aspects of having stats, using random factors, decision making in combat and levels and a "strong" plot. (STrong is in quotes because a strong RPG plot back then would be a very weak action game plot these days.)

<b>ArcturusXIV</b>

Ok, so you didn't like one game. Then you decided that game represented every other RPG released for every console ever. No reason to insult everyone in the world who _does_ like those games.

<b>limorkill</b>

You are, of course, absolutely wrong.

The genre of a game has <i>everything</i>, EVERYTHING, to do with it's <b>gameplay.</b> GTA:SA, as much as it contains the elements you guys yearn so strongly for, is in no way an RPG because it's gameplay is not that of an RPG.

You would likely enjoy seeing those elements in any style of game, and perhaps even thing an FPS like Deus Ex which had more of those elements would be the greatest game ever. But it would NOT be an RPG, and to call it one would be misleading. More to the point, no one else would call it an RPG so if you went into the store looking for an RPG based on _your_ definition you would probably never get the game... heh.



Like I said, you guys need a prefix that can be added to the already existing genre titles to describe the actual roleplay experience that can be found within games of any genre.

 

[Jedi359]

I'm not really sure you can qualify Final Fantasy games as RPGs, since nearly every aspect of the role you might want to carve out is defined for you. You always start those games with your life all laid out for you. You have a name. You have a job you've been doing. You probably have a girlfriend when you start. You probably have a best friend, but don't get too attached to him because he's probably going to die or turn evil on you. You have gobs and gobs of pre-defined relationships with just about everyone in the game's starting location. You have a defined backstory, probably something about how your parents died.

Any life changing event is going to happen anyway, so long as you're far enough along to run across it. It's not by your choice, it's part of the script. You've just beaten the 12th boss, so it's time for you to go from Dragoon to Paladin. You can't betray your goody goody friends and be evil, but they can do that to you, if the script calls for it, regardless of your actions. If an NPC leaves you, it's not because of any of your actions because you have no choice in them, it's because the story calls for it.

It's just a story with some level gaining. No choices, no defining yourself, nothing.

I think you're being too specific with this definition. I think that both the game type you refer to and the type FF is are both subsets of the RPG genre. It's the difference between Macintosh apples and Granny SMith apples.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Saint_Proverbius

You've obviously avoided reading anything I wrote so far in the last several threads I've participated in.

There there. There there. Feel better now?

It does not matter that there are no choices and no defining yourself. There were no choices and no defining yourself in any of the earliest RPGs, perhaps because computers were not capable of it yet.

There's a huge difference in simply not defining a character at all ever in a game and defining every aspect of the character from start to finish. I assume you're refering to the roguelike thread, so in a roguelike, you're a blank slate. There is no history for your character, and any choices you make in the games themselves are all combat oriented. That's one thing.

Final Fantasy games are totally different where nearly *everything* is defined for you. You have no choice at all about who you are because the game tells you who you are. You are told from start to finish who and what you are.

It's better to not define the character in any way than to totally define the character inside and out. If nearly every aspect of the character is defined by the story from start to finish, then there is no role playing there at all.

Why am I crawling through this dungeon? In a rogue-like, it could be for whatever reason you'd like it to be. It's up to you why you think you're in that dungeon. In Final Fantasy games, you're told exactly why you're doing it. You're told your motivations.

 

[Sarvis]

Actually the roguelikes DO give you a backstory. Usually trying to retrieve something for your god if I remember correctly.

I wouldn't really say there was much more choice in a roguelike than in Final Fantasy, or better yet Legend of Zelda. In those games you can pretty much imagine whatever you want around the main story. Final Fantasy 1 just starts off with your party showing up on Coneria, Zelda you are just standing in a field... that's actually LESS backstory than roguelikes give you. So now by your definitions console RPG and Adventure titles are more RPGs than the actual precursors to the genre!

I was actually referring to the Definition of an RPG thread, I think I wrote my post in the Diablo thread AFTER I wrote the last post in this one... heh. Maybe...

 

[Limorkil]

The above is also why I think Kotor was a good game but not a good RPG. You have to have played the game, or at least read a complete walkthrough, to understand. Kotor is a story about a particular character that you semi-customize and control, but is ultimately not YOUR character but Bioware's character. A Kotor-fan could argue that Bioware only gives you a background and you fill in all the details and control his/her actions during the game. True, but the fact that my character's background is not my own massively lessens the RPG experience IMO.

Presumably that means Planescape:Torment isn't a good RPG either. You've got just as little background control, and even less freedom in the ending (unless you deliberately lose the game).

Edit: not making an argument; just an observation.

Never played Planescape:Torment so I can't really comment. There are specific things with Kotor that make it not a good RPG (but still a great game) IMO. I just don't know enough about PS:T to know whether it is the same. My problem with Kotor is that everything about your character is predetermined by the developers right down to his name and they type of weapon he prefers to use. You can change those elements but the game continues to refer to the predetermined character, essentially ignoring your own customization. It just doesn't feel right. Great game though.

 

[dojoteef]

RPGs really come down to choice. The choice to play a character as you see fit: to develop the character, to make decisions for the character, to choose the motivations of the character. In my opinion that's what makes an RPG. With games like FF you don't get that choice. The character is pretty much defined for you, which makes the game more of an adventure game than an RPG.

That is ultimately how I would describe an RPG, the ability to choose a role and play it. I don't think it has to do with stats, rolls, or whatever. Those are just mechanisms that some of the earliest RPGs used in order to let you develop your character in a consistent manner that could be applied to any specific game instance. They ultimately are a foundation for playing a role, though I don't think they are all necessary. Most RPGs still use these mechanisms because they do work in helping a person role play within the confines of a rule system (which is ultimately a requirement in order to make a cRPG).

I guess I might get flamed for this, but isn't that what really differentiates what people on these forums believe makes a good RPG from a mediocre RPG. The greater the freedom in developing your character, the more it seems people here enjoy the RPG (maybe I'm off base, but that's what I say differentiates Fallout from FF for example). I know for a fact at least that's how I feel. I hope nobody minds that I took to liberty to say how you guys feel .

 

[Sarvis]

RPGs really come down to choice.

I'm just going to reply to this quick before bed, will read and reply to the rest later.


What makes you think that? More to the point, what makes you think _choice_ is something specific to RPGs and something that cannot be used in other genres? Because when you say RPGs are defined by having choices you basically make any game that gives you choices an RPG, no matter what kind of gameplay it has.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

Christ, Jap RPGs aren't even RPGs, they're just adventure games that lack the depth of a true PnP experience. Yep, you heard it right. Japanese RPGs are as shallow as the kiddie pool in my backyard. The ones they release in their own country are pretty good from what I hear from exchange students, but the ones released over here in America are *specifically* dumbed down for an American audience. That's something I heard right in Gamespot. Not kidding either.

Presumably that means Planescape:Torment isn't a good RPG either. You've got just as little background control, and even less freedom in the ending (unless you deliberately lose the game).

How you even compare the beautiful, literate writing, the descriptions and depth, and the detail in Torment to any generic console RPG is beyond me. I would even go so far as to call such a statement non sequiter.

 

[Limorkil]

<b>limorkill</b>

You are, of course, absolutely wrong.

The genre of a game has <i>everything</i>, EVERYTHING, to do with it's <b>gameplay.</b> GTA:SA, as much as it contains the elements you guys yearn so strongly for, is in no way an RPG because it's gameplay is not that of an RPG.

You would likely enjoy seeing those elements in any style of game, and perhaps even thing an FPS like Deus Ex which had more of those elements would be the greatest game ever. But it would NOT be an RPG, and to call it one would be misleading. More to the point, no one else would call it an RPG so if you went into the store looking for an RPG based on _your_ definition you would probably never get the game... heh.

Like I said, you guys need a prefix that can be added to the already existing genre titles to describe the actual roleplay experience that can be found within games of any genre.

Well I said I couldn't comment on GTA:SA since I never played it and have no idea what it is. How can that be wrong? How do you know what I've played and what I haven't played?

So what is the gameplay of an RPG then, in your opinion? Your argument seems to be that a game cannot be called an RPG unless it is labelled an RPG in the store, which seems a little circular to me. However, it does play into what I wrote earlier, which is that if enough developers label adventure games like FF as RPGs then sure enough that is what ""RPG" will come to mean.

As I wrote somewhere else, if you take Doom and add character development, dialogue, story and actions other than shooting at what point does it stop being an FPS and start being an RPG? Is your contention that it can never be an RPG and, if so, why?

As for a prefix to add to existing genre titles, how about "Not Really A" As in "Final Fantasy, Not Really A RPG".

 

[Quigs]

heh, console means playstation blows. Well, sony really. Sony electronics in general suck ass. they represent the same measure of thinking that made eminem and elivs. Two things people like, mush them together, make a cheap product, and shove it down your throat.

Everything turns to crap after going sony.

FF is a great example. the first few on the nes and snes were great RPG's. You could make chars and classes, and some even had job systems, with basic skills. FF goes to sony, and it turns into a giant boring interactive movie.

Arc, you're right, jap gaming in general is just on a higher level. One game I plan to get on the DS is you play as a futuristic surgeon, and you use the touch pad and stylus like a scalpel, disecting dead and live patients, trying to figure out plagues and cures, etc. Of course, for every game like that, there are two dozen pokemon clones, so...