Incline Okay let's be real here... Which games can never be RPGs?

[Ash]

Damn that's some bad taste. Call of Duty singleplayer is the literal definition of popamole second only to the awful braindead cover shooters of that time period. I don't care how good your story is if 90% of the running time you're literally playing glorified whack-a-mole like some drooling retard. Probably the perfect game for many RPG codex denizens though considering many here are storyfaggots of the same cloth, or otherwise are simply retarded.

I'm not sure where this stems from, but Ash is generally fairly coherent even when I disagree with him.

I trigger a LOT of little retards and butthurt weirdos wherever I go, because I can be rude and stubborn. But a correct asshole is still correct. It is what it is. The type I trigger is the type that deserves the belittlement in the first place.
...I am not really an asshole (well, sometimes) I just don't back down to stupidity, make them ragequit, then they come back to snipe me later, as you just witnessed.

 

[luj1]

You haven't been able to sensibly define RPGs for decades

RPGs were defined already. It's a fantasy adventure told through small-scale miniature wargaming. What hasn't been defined are CRPGs. But they are just a digital port of that experience, it's that simple.

 

[BosanskiSeljak]

I recall Mass Effect enemies are very much bullet sponges, regardless of your character stats.

In Mass Effect 2, yes. Mass Effect you can basically 1 shot enemies on the highest difficulty depending on skills and gear.

In an Action RPG, the character's skill could be that of the player's own, and the RPG stats could instead be applied to the character's equipment; like weapon accuracy, ammo types (armor piercing, incendiary), etc. That way the game doesn't have to put artificial limitations on the character's own abilities, which always feels like wearing a straitjacket to me when playing an action game.

Then it's not an RPG, and they're not artificial limitations. A character without good skills in weapons shouldn't be able to run around and destroy everything with guns, which I can easily do.

If an Action RPG instead only limits weapon accuracy, the character can aim just as good as the player, but a low stat weapon's bullets will not hit quite where its reticule shows, and the player must use extra skill to compensate for the weapon's shortcomings.

Then, again, it's not an RPG because your skill with a mouse should not be a factor. Play an action game if you want that, not an RPG. I don't play them because I can overcome anything in a shooter despite my stats. I can't do that in an RPG.

I see your point now, it's just wrong and stupid.

 

[janior]

COD4 is an rpg because it has stats, it has tactical combat, it has XP and lvls, you can roleplay(voicechat) it even has perks and classes!

 

[Saldrone]

The further a game leans away from the grassroots tabletop elements that started it and still define it, the less an RPG it is, it's not more complicated than that. Action RPGs and such are literal hybrids, like the term implies, while all the perfunctory leveling/progression systems that get slapped onto all sorts of games these days are so shallow and not to mention ubiquitous now that I don't think they can really even be called "RPG elements" anymore. But what do I know, certain professionals clearly disagree.

Hey, his old list still goes on!

6) Wing Commander/X-Wing
5) Pac-Man
4) Grand Theft Auto 3
3) Civilization
2) Doom

And the game to earn the 1st place is...

1) Ultima 7

 

[Nifft Batuff]

If the game came after the year 2000, then is not a RPG.

 

[Child of Malkav]

Well I'm probably wrong as fuck but from what I've been able to understand from many sources is that for a game to be considered an RPG (purely and exclusively regarding gameplay and mechanics) it kinda has to have these essential components:

1. Character skill is number one. Character skill > Player skill. This is non negotiable. The success or failure or character actions need to depend exclusively on the level of skill of the character.
2. The variety of builds or configurations: - the game needs stats to make this work: attributes, skills, perks, traits etc.
- the builds need to be different, meaning different playstyles

That's it.
Sure, choice and consequence, reactivity, branching story etc. would be good to have but I don't consider them to essential. Again, talking just on a purely mechanical and gameplay level.

 

[luj1]

Yeah. CnC is absolutely not a principal tenet of RPGs. People just tripping.

 

[Butter]

Even builds aren't necessary. There were no builds in Wizardry. What matters is that your class or stats noticeably and meaningfully affect gameplay (ie they're not just flavor). Playing a Fighter should be meaningfully different than playing a Mage. Playing with 18 dex and 3 con should be meaningfully different than playing with 3 dex and 18 con.

 

[Ash]

Yeah. CnC is absolutely not a principal tenet of RPGs. People just tripping.

Well...depends. CnC as the codex defines it, no. But it's literal definition - choices having consequences (good or bad), is pretty much THE core tenet of all true games. As in gameplay - strategy, challenge, interactivity, player expression. Elementary shit ideally not needing to be said, but then again gamers be gamers...I digress. Story choices, no, the dungeon master/game designer defines all that, if any. Totally optional. OG Wizardry/Ultima had none. However it does count for something nonetheless as it is a natural extension of role-playing games conceptually. It's just not a hard requirement.

 

[luj1]

Even builds aren't necessary. There were no builds in Wizardry. What matters is that your class or stats noticeably and meaningfully affect gameplay (ie they're not just flavor). Playing a Fighter should be meaningfully different than playing a Mage.

Hence, what "role" in "role playing game" truly stands for.

 

[luj1]

choices having consequences (good or bad), is pretty much THE core tenet of all true games

It is also the core tenet of the universe and life itself, but that is a pointless argument. That is like saying "action" or issuing a command is a core tenet of RPGs.

 

[Ash]

Like I said, ideally it didn't need to be said, but gamers are typically thick as bricks. Especially storyfaggots.

 

[Iucounu]

In an Action RPG, the character's skill could be that of the player's own, and the RPG stats could instead be applied to the character's equipment; like weapon accuracy, ammo types (armor piercing, incendiary), etc. That way the game doesn't have to put artificial limitations on the character's own abilities, which always feels like wearing a straitjacket to me when playing an action game.

Then it's not an RPG, and they're not artificial limitations.

They are in a first-person game, where you have real-time control of your character (if the RPG skill mechanics didn't artificially limit that control). I agree that it doesn't matter in say turn-based games, where you have no real-time control.

A character without good skills in weapons

So just stop having Action RPGs start with a character lacking good skills then? That also solves the lore paradox of the super hero somehow always being incompetent at the beginning of the game. Instead, let the super hero start without equipment, and increase his effectiveness by obtaining better gear.

shouldn't be able to run around and destroy everything with guns, which I can easily do.

Not if your early guns are bad. If your early low-tier gear is also heavy, it will realistically reduce your running speed.

If an Action RPG instead only limits weapon accuracy, the character can aim just as good as the player, but a low stat weapon's bullets will not hit quite where its reticule shows, and the player must use extra skill to compensate for the weapon's shortcomings.

Then, again, it's not an RPG because your skill with a mouse should not be a factor.

None at all, or not just the only factor? You mentioned Mass Effect 1 above, don't you consider it an RPG? Obviously you have to do at least a little aiming even there. It sounds terrible to play a real-time first-person RPG with guns where mouse skills are not a factor at all. I suppose it could work in a point and click adventure.

 

[GuiltyofBeingTrite]

If a game is first-person it isn't an RPG, because the game world is relying on the player's perception and not the character's.

 

[ds]

Some book I was reading some time ago claimed that in role-playing game, players control their characters and react to the events of the intrigue. If the player doesn't want his character to go through the door, the character won't do it. If the player thinks the character can wriggle out of a difficult situation instead of immediately reaching for a weapon, his character will talk. The scenario or intrigue of a role-playing game is flexible, constantly changing with every decision players make for their characters.

So any game with cutscenes that take control away from the player can never be an RPG? I like this definition.

 

[Alan]

An RPG is just a strategy game where you spend a lot of time listening to some fictional character's bullshit

So, if a game lacks the strategy or the bullshit, it cannot be an RPG.

 

[Wise Emperor]

An RPG is just a strategy game where you spend a lot of time listening to some fictional character's bullshit

So, if a game lacks the strategy or the bullshit, it cannot be an RPG.

Finally CK3 will be moved to General RPG Discussion.

 

[Ash]

Some book I was reading some time ago claimed that in role-playing game, players control their characters and react to the events of the intrigue. If the player doesn't want his character to go through the door, the character won't do it. If the player thinks the character can wriggle out of a difficult situation instead of immediately reaching for a weapon, his character will talk. The scenario or intrigue of a role-playing game is flexible, constantly changing with every decision players make for their characters.

So any game with cutscenes that take control away from the player can never be an RPG? I like this definition.

I don't think you do. Arx Fatalis has a mid-game cutscene (Noden/Am Sheagar reveal).

If a game is first-person it isn't an RPG, because the game world is relying on the player's perception and not the character's.

Wizardry is not an RPG by this definition, GuiltyofBeingTrite. Nice name, it suits you!

 

[ds]

I don't think you do. Arx Fatalis has a mid-game cutscene (Noden/Am Sheagar reveal).

That's just an extended conversation, technically no different from any other time you "talk to" NPCs in the game.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

In truth, all CRPGs need to be is a reasonable digital analog of a tabletop session.

This is a retarded notion when you think about it

Why?

Because they are fundamentally distinct mediums and game experiences
As such trying to transform one into the other is a misguided pursuit and ultimately gimps the former

Well? Do you have anything

Patience man
I do have more to do than posting in your shit threads

 

[Ash]

That's just an extended conversation, technically no different from any other time you "talk to" NPCs in the game.

Typical gamer on the internet being wrong! Pretty tedious but I get to flex on you so whatever. It has multiple camera cuts to other locations and even panning across a still render of an alternate dimension, is like 4 minutes long, even has its own music track. It's a cutscene bro, distinct from simple, arguably not-cutscenes camera cuts purely for dialogue as in other games (e.g Deus Ex). A very stylish one, but they came close to impeding upon monocled "immersive sim" convention (intro and end game cutscenes only), heck that's almost RPG convention period as discussed. Still, it's very acceptable for such a big story reveal, and 1 cutscene is hardly pushing it. They did a fine job as usual with Arx. Then they quickly became shit-slingers like everyone else.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

RPGs are defined by their character-related aspects, combat-related aspects, and exploration-related aspects, which can be summarized as:

1. Character Progression (leveling up to become more powerful)
2. Character Customization (at least classes and attributes, though classes can be replaced by a skill-based system; party customization can substitute)
3. Equipment (weapon, armor, other things that give active or passive benefits; better equipment makes a character more powerful)
4. Inventory (items on hand that can be switched with equipment or consumed)
5. Character-Skill-Based (player chooses character’s action, but success of character’s actions depends on statistics and the game system, not the action of the player)
6. Deliberation (player has opportunity to consider character’s actions before choosing what to do; in real-time games at least a pause function)
7. Randomness (dice-rolls or something else to remove determinism)
8. Statistics (game system is coherent and transparent enough that player can weigh the numbers to gauge the chance of success in an action)
9. Exploration (player has control over character’s movement through gamespace and can make meaningful exploration decisions rather than follow linear path)
10. Dungeons (a mythic underworld to explore; many RPGs have only a dungeon without an overworld, but it is more difficult to be an RPG with an overworld but no dungeons)
11. Openness (players have control over their characters’ movements and objectives in the world rather than being forced into particular quests; difficult in CRPGs and fairly rare)
12. Logistics (players must manage their characters’ resources, due to inventory limitations, encumbrance, stamina/fatigue, need for food, need for water, need for sleep, realistic lighting and a day/night cycle, Vancian magic memorization, weapon/armor deterioration and repair, etc.)

 

[ds]

Typical gamer on the internet being wrong! Pretty tedious but I get to flex on you so whatever. It has multiple camera cuts to other locations and even panning across a still render of an alternate dimension, is like 4 minutes long, even has its own music track. It's a cutscene bro, distinct from simple camera cuts purely for dialogue as in other games (e.g Deus Ex). A very stylish one, but they came close to impeding upon monocled "immersive sim" convention (intro and end game cutscenes only), heck that's almost RPG convention period as discussed. Still, it's very acceptable for such a big story reveal, and 1 cutscene is hardly pushing it. They did a fine job as usual with Arx. Then they quickly became shit-slingers like everyone else.

And this is how literally every conversation works in Arx Fatalis. This one is just a particularly long one, there is otherwise nothing special about it.

There are also no camera cuts to other locations, only illustrations of other locations shown to the player. The illustrations that are shown in the council room conversation as well as at many other points throughout the game do not take control away from the player character because game time does not advance while they are shown.

 

[9ted6]

Fallout 4 and 76.