Putting the 'ROLE' back in RPG...

[Crnobog]

Shaka, when the walls fell.

 

[kris]

They are plenty of games that prove you wrong.

That's according to your opinion

Then the concept of RPGs is meaningless, at least to you, aint it?

Oh master, knower of all things, what does Role-playing game mean then? Is it not the ability to role-play in a game?

Really? Wow, that's like totally awesome. Btw, what makes the magician evill, if you don't mind me asking? Let me guess, I must imagine that he's evil, am i rite?

No you are incorrect. If you play the magician in a way where the actions are evil. If you think what the magician does is evil then he is evil, if you think he's good he is good.

Awesome! Now, why do I need to have a game for that again? I can role-play in my house, because it has truly realistic graphics (you should see the shadows! every object casts them!) and awesome sound, and I can role-play anything I want!

If you want to...

Thats because in presenting the flaws in my own argument I show you how anyone's defenition is debatable. I don't deny anyone else's definition, only problem is why should other's deny mine or anyone elses?

Sorry for replying to you. I see now how lost that cause is and am now going to pretend "roleplaying" about hot sex with sexy elven maids.

 

[Vault Dweller]

They give you the game in first person. The shooting is up to you.

What about the rest of the stuff? Level design, creatures behavior, weapon design, setting, advantages/disadvantages of different things, etc? Optional?

They are plenty of games that prove you wrong.

That's according to your opinion

Actually, it's not. Whether Arcanum is a good or bad game, is a matter of opinion. The game's features that prove your wrong aren't.

Oh master, knower of all things, what does Role-playing game mean then? Is it not the ability to role-play in a game?

What's role-playing then? Pretending that you are the character you see on the screen? No. While definitions are subjective, yours is to wide, making every game that's ever been released an RPG. Since it failed to define the genre, it's useless. See my point?

Let me shock even further, D&D is not even a game. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/game

I think it falls under that category, unless you have something else that defines what it is?

It's a ruleset. Do I need to explain further?

Really? Wow, that's like totally awesome. Btw, what makes the magician evill, if you don't mind me asking? Let me guess, I must imagine that he's evil, am i rite?

No you are incorrect. If you play the magician in a way where the actions are evil. If you think what the magician does is evil then he is evil, if you think he's good he is good.

Your response is awfully generic, isn't it? You do realize that I'm asking you what are the evil ways, and how does the game respond to you being like totally evil and shit?

Must be nice being a developer then.

No, because of jackasses like you criticizing their work even before trying it.

I tried the game. Next.

Twisted is my opinion, and I didn't mean it in a bad way. I was refering to the criticisms which Oblivion was given by people who haven't even tried it.

Why should they? A lot of design info has been released over the last year. Unless you can't read, it's hard not to form an opinion based on those facts.

I borrowed the game from a friend, when he took it back I went and baught it.
Was a great game. Took me an hour to realize that I could fast travel to places. Very first time I got owned by those pack of wolves you meet on your way out from the crash site. Then I proceeded to walk all the way to the first town (Shrowded Hills?).

I found the game pretty decent the characters where pretty cool. But what I liked most was the story. I did not expect such an ending I also liked the magic vs tech theme, was pretty original.

Did you see the choices, the consequences, different ways to handle quests, NPCs reactions?

I don't believe that. That's impossible. No game before has even had NPCs reacting to your race, class, faction, reputation, etc, why should we believe that Oblivion does that?

As far as I understand it's based on fame. If you are a famous thief NPC react differently towards you if were a knight.

That was sarcasm referring to the fact that NPCs have been reacting to your character's traits for the last 15 years if not more.

 

[Xanfire]

All RPG games provide the basic elements. However I didn't specify that it had to be good or bad, that is only the player's opinion. One player can find a certain RPG unsettling and stop playing because he doesn't feel that game doesn't provide what he needs to role play, while another player can feel the opposite.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Caring is fine, but caring too much is bad. This can limit your experiences.

Like if you care too much about life, then you might miss out on all those experiences you could've had attempting to kill everyone that's ever annoyed you? Or if you care too much about RPGs, and have standards, then you'll miss out on all those shitty RPGs you never spent much time with? These are sad thoughts

I'm not telling you to stop bashing Oblivion or any game as a matter of fact. Play it, experience, then come and bash it. Don't bash it because someone else said it's bad.

You mean I can't comment on Oblivion until I've spent several hundred dollars to upgrade my system as well as purchase the game? That's fine. Besides, this thread is about your inability to understand what's expected of RPGs around here and why. Everyone here knows what LARPing is. They understand that they can roleplay with a spoon and a condom and a pile of dirt.

My comment was in regards to your bit about roleplaying games needing to provide environments and stories, which is exactly what the people here are most critical of. What's the problem?

Would it be fair if I called you ugly and stupid without ever meeting you in person? Or just judge you by what other people say about you?

Having standards is good, but if they are too high, you actually could miss something you could've enjoyed.

My comment regarding your comment meant:
It's fine to criticize and care about the quality of what the developer gives out, however not everyone will agree with you on what is a good or bad game.

 

[AlanC9]

Xanfire was right that a lot of games, regardless of genre, have some sort of role-playing element. I'm not quite sure what this has to do with anything, though, except as a tacit admission that Oblivion, whatever else it might be, isn't much of an RPG.

As for the "tools" Oblivion provides, Xanfire lists Graphics, Animation (I appreciate the distinction), Sound, and Story. Giving Oblivion high marks in each. Nice to not see the combat system come into it, since you can have a good RPG even with sucky combat.

Even assuming that Oblivion's animations are good (and I've seen some stupid-looking game footage, so this is debatable), the first three just aren't all that important for role-playing. All you need is enough of those to tell the player about the world his character's living in. Once you've communicated that information, further improvements are nice, but don't add to the role-playing.

That leaves Story, which includes a lot of elements, like NPC design and reactions. All Xanfire has to say about this is that Oblivion's great because it's so open-ended. Well, so was Morrowind, and the Morrowind story elements were a failure anyway. Dull NPCs, stupid quest design, choices without consequences, a non-reactive world.... we all know the list. (I'll stick up for the world design itself, and the books of lore)

Whether or not I pick up Oblivion depends on whether these elements have improved over Morrowind. So far, I've heard good things about the main quest, but bad things about NPC design (the Wiki conversations can't help) and sidequests.

 

[merry andrew]

Would it be fair if I called you ugly and stupid without ever meeting you in person? Or just judge you by what other people say about you?

No. That would make me cry and hurt my superficial self-esteem that can't gracefully process negative feedback.

Having standards is good, but if they are too high, you actually could miss something you could've enjoyed.

That's very true. And if your standards are too low, you'll let developers know that you really don't care what they give you because all you're interested in is ignoring what the game gives you. There doesn't even have to be a game, it's just nice when there is one. We don't want to be too ungrateful and actually be picky.

It's fine to criticize and care about the quality of what the developer gives out, however not everyone will agree with you on what is a good or bad environment.

Where are people saying you have to agree with them? Concerning environment quality, which of these would be better as a roleplaying game?:

1. A highly detailed and intricate environment.
2. A low detail and bland environment.

 

[Blahblah Talks]

This thread reads like a really shitty airport novel. It's completely stupid, but impossible to put down. Thanks for the 20 min of entertainment Xanfire, I'm now going to go role-play being a Shaolin monk in a game of Tag.

1
2
3
Not it!

 

[Xanfire]

What about the rest of the stuff? Level design, creatures behavior, weapon design, setting, advantages/disadvantages of different things, etc? Optional?

That was implied. I meant they give you a complete game that is played through a first person view.

Actually, it's not. Whether Arcanum is a good or bad game, is a matter of opinion. The game's features that prove your wrong aren't.

Huh? How does that prove me wrong?

What's role-playing then? Pretending that you are the character you see on the screen? No. While definitions are subjective, yours is to wide, making every game that's ever been released an RPG. Since it failed to define the genre, it's useless. See my point?

Why am I not allowed to have such a definition? While it is a wide definition, and you are right that a genre needs definition, that does not exclude the fact that you can role-play in any game. Every game that has been released is just a game, genre just points out how that game is generally played.

It's a ruleset. Do I need to explain further?

Nope, I get it. My mistake.

Your response is awfully generic, isn't it? You do realize that I'm asking you what are the evil ways, and how does the game respond to you being like totally evil and shit?

I don't know, I haven't tried a character that is evil according to the game. But the more I help people the friendlier they get towards me. I'd imagine being evil has an opposite effect.

It was generic because it's very hard to define what good and evil is.

I tried the game. Next.

Really?

Why should they? A lot of design info has been released over the last year. Unless you can't read, it's hard not to form an opinion based on those facts.

Yes, but that information had always the chance to change until release. Forming an opinion is ok sharing it is cool too. Forming an opinion on the game as a whole before trying it is uncool because you do not have all the information to make a valid arguement.

Did you see the choices, the consequences, different ways to handle quests, NPCs reactions?

A lot of games have these things, it doesn't mean it will give a positive impact.

 

[Rat Keeng]

Would it be fair if I called you ugly and stupid without ever meeting you in person?

Of course not! I also don't like it when people jump to conclusions about upcoming movies like Snakes on a Plane. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET, HOW CAN YOU JUDGE?!? HOW!!!

 

[Xanfire]

Xanfire was right that a lot of games, regardless of genre, have some sort of role-playing element. I'm not quite sure what this has to do with anything, though, except as a tacit admission that Oblivion, whatever else it might be, isn't much of an RPG.

As for the "tools" Oblivion provides, Xanfire lists Graphics, Animation (I appreciate the distinction), Sound, and Story. Giving Oblivion high marks in each. Nice to not see the combat system come into it, since you can have a good RPG even with sucky combat.

Even assuming that Oblivion's animations are good (and I've seen some stupid-looking game footage, so this is debatable), the first three just aren't all that important for role-playing. All you need is enough of those to tell the player about the world his character's living in. Once you've communicated that information, further improvements are nice, but don't add to the role-playing.

That leaves Story, which includes a lot of elements, like NPC design and reactions. All Xanfire has to say about this is that Oblivion's great because it's so open-ended. Well, so was Morrowind, and the Morrowind story elements were a failure anyway. Dull NPCs, stupid quest design, choices without consequences, a non-reactive world.... we all know the list. (I'll stick up for the world design itself, and the books of lore)

Whether or not I pick up Oblivion depends on whether these elements have improved over Morrowind. So far, I've heard good things about the main quest, but bad things about NPC design (the Wiki conversations can't help) and sidequests.

This game is much, much better than Morrowind. Took all the good stuff and made it better. SOme bad stuff went out, and others were drastically improved.

Another positive note is the ability to modify the game. Soon as all the mods that come out with various improvements, and even bug fixes the game will look better and better as time goes by. If you install and play Morrowind you'll not be impressed, if you install all the mods that have come out for it you'll say, "Is that the same game?".

 

[SlavemasterT]

Why am I not allowed to have such a definition? While it is a wide definition, and you are right that a genre needs definition, that does not exclude the fact that you can role-play in any game.

You're more than welcome to adopt that definition. We're just going to keep considering you an idiot so long as you hold on to it, is all.

 

[merry andrew]

I also don't like it when people jump to conclusions about upcoming movies like Snakes on a Plane. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET, HOW CAN YOU JUDGE?!? HOW!!!

ARE YOU SERIOUS

 

[Vault Dweller]

That was implied. I meant they give you a complete game that is played through a first person view.

Yes, but played "how" is important, no? So, not only must they give you a gun and something to shoot at, but they must also design some mechanics instead of relying on your imagination alone. Same goes for RPGs. Not only we must have weapons, and loot-dropping experience-raising monsters, but some mechanics that turn that shooter with stats into an RPG.

Actually, it's not. Whether Arcanum is a good or bad game, is a matter of opinion. The game's features that prove your wrong aren't.

Huh? How does that prove me wrong?

*sigh* From your first post: " It was as if you were expecting the developers to give the whole package of "RPG". That's absolutely insane to expect from a single developer, and if that were the case no one would ever like a game! It's very simple, they only deliver the GAME, wether you find the ROLE PLAYING or not is comepletely up to you..."
Well, Arcanum was a game that gave you the whole package of RPG and delivered, using your fucked up definition, both the GAME and the ROLE PLAYING.

Why am I not allowed to have such a definition?

You are allowed to do anything you want, cupcake. I'm just pointing out that some things you say paint you stupid. Thought you might want to know that, what with us being best friends and all.

While it is a wide definition, and you are right that a genre needs definition, that does not exclude the fact that you can role-play in any game.
...
Every game that has been released is just a game, genre just points out how that game is generally played.

Well, we are not talking about you role-playing a brave sapper, dealing with mines in Minesweeper, we are talking about the genre here.

I don't know, I haven't tried a character that is evil according to the game. But the more I help people the friendlier they get towards me. I'd imagine being evil has an opposite effect.

Oh, isn't that cute? You have no fucking idea how, if at all, the game handles being evil, but you use it as an example of Oblivion's many and awesome role-playing features (see your earlier posts)

Really?

Really.

Yes, but that information had always the chance to change until release. Forming an opinion is ok sharing it is cool too. Forming an opinion on the game as a whole before trying it is uncool because you do not have all the information to make a valid arguement.

So far I don't see us being wrong, do you?

Did you see the choices, the consequences, different ways to handle quests, NPCs reactions?

A lot of games have these things, it doesn't mean it will give a positive impact.

You are avoiding the question. Anyway, no, not a lot of games have these things, unfortunately, and in Arcanum, those things had a very positive impact.

 

[Xanfire]

Vault Dweller:

Arcanum did not deliver everything. The game was good, but not that good.

How are my opinions any worse than your's? Or are you going to claim it is in fact impossible to role-play anywhere but in RPG games which you think are RPG's. Now that's stupid.
Why is my definition too wide and generic? Becuase you think it is. Much like a fortune teller gives a very generic answer to a question and the listener automatically believes it is something that pertains to them soley. That is the flaw in your thinking, RPG needs a generic defenition because it can be very relative. If you think your definition of RPG is the best there is and everyone else is wrong go ahead, but I'll just consider you an idiot. Not everyone knows what RPG means in your terms, in fact I think only a small fraction of the world would understand your definition.

However my definition, being as genric as it is can be understood by more people.

Talking about a genre? Are completely sure about your defenition of the term?
Would I put Diablo II under RPG or Hack'n'Slash? It's based on a person's experience and opinion on the game. RPG more than other genres is blurry at best for a definite definition, because the ability to role-play can be applied so vastly.

 

[RK47]

and what did morrowind delivered exactly? after daggerfall i was expecting the same free-from random world, something that enchances replayability.

Instead I get same quests for every replay I did ( I was reallly , really disappointed when I discovered that the first time )

I get a 10 x smaller dungeon...sometimes a 3 room dungeon that has nothing of value.

What DID morrowind deliver? besides a great mod kit for community to make it more interesting.

Daggerfall feature the same 3 swing combat system, yet I don't find it as boring as Morrowind. Why is that?

 

[Sander]

Vault Dweller:

Arcanum did not deliver everything. The game was good, but not that good.

The game had something essential: choices and meaningful consequences to those choices, not just 'You can solve this quest in two ways, but the end effect is exactly the same LAWL!' logic most 'RPGs' apply.
Look at it like this: an RPG is a game that freely allows you to play *different* roles that all have meaningful choices and different, meaningful consequences.

How are my opinions any worse than your's? Or are you going to claim it is in fact impossible to role-play anywhere but in RPG games which you think are RPG's. Now that's stupid.

This isn't about the ability to play pretend, which anyone can do in anything, this is about a role-playing game, something very different.

Why is my definition too wide and generic? Becuase you think it is. Much like a fortune teller gives a very generic answer to a question and the listener automatically believes it is something that pertains to them soley. That is the flaw in your thinking, RPG needs a generic defenition because it can be very relative. If you think your definition of RPG is the best there is and everyone else is wrong go ahead, but I'll just consider you an idiot. Not everyone knows what RPG means in your terms, in fact I think only a small fraction of the world would understand your definition.

However my definition, being as genric as it is can be understood by more people.

It's so generic it loses all meaning. It means everything is an RPG. So then what's the use of that term? The entire point of a term like RPG is to differ certain games from other games.

Talking about a genre? Are completely sure about your defenition of the term?
Would I put Diablo II under RPG or Hack'n'Slash? It's based on a person's experience and opinion on the game. RPG more than other genres is blurry at best for a definite definition, because the ability to role-play can be applied so vastly.

No, it isn't. You're looking at the term role-play in a literal meaning and then assume that that literal meaning must be what the term RPG is based on. Which is, quite simply, wrong and makes the entire qualification lose all meaning.

 

[kingcomrade]

Since it failed to define the genre, it's useless. See my point?

See what every single person who has come into this thread has been trying to tell you? This is all you should need to realize that when you say things like this:

Every game that has been released is just a game, genre just points out how that game is generally played.

that you are being retarded. They aren't called RPGs to describe the "way" you play it, they are called RPGs because they have a certain set of gameplay mechanics. If you expand the semantics to include every game where you "play a role" then the genre title is useless. Do I need to remind you that these titles don't come out of thin air?

Seriously do you intentionally decide to ignore what I write or are you illiterate?

It's intentional.

Let me define some words for since you seem to have difficulty in grasping simple sentences and explanations.

Relative: How the certain individual sees or percieves something.
Role Paying: Playing the role of someone or thing according to that someone or thing's beliefs and perceptions.

Let me define some words for you according to what they actually mean, since you seem to have such a poor grasp of the English language:
Relative: In comparison to smth.
Role Playing: Assuming control of of an avatar who behaves as you dictate him to behave.

Now lets examine if RPG is a relative term or rather relative meaning would be more correct.

Apparantly coherent grammar isn't in your repetoire either. Don't worry, if you think hard enough you can Role Play it into existance![/quote]

If I play a game, and in that game I decide to role play, wouldn't that make it a role playing game?

No, that would make you a retard susceptible to deep conversations about anime and possible a fanfiction author.

Because I'm playing a game where I have the possibility to role play.

Great! What does that have to do with RPGs, which aren't defined as "a game where you can roleplay" but as a game genre with a set of specific mechanics. RPG isn't a literal title. I call my car the Sports Beast, yet its spedometer goes only up to 80, but I still call it a Sports Beast so doesn't that make it a racecar? Maybe if I'm roleplaying.

That is clearly within the definition of RPG, how you percieve the meaining of it is relative to you. Because another person playing the same game doesn't role play in that certain game, and then goes tells the person that is role playing that this game is not a role playing game. Is that relative enough for you?

So because you like to make pretend that you are Sonic the Hedgehog, that makes it an RPG? Sorry, no. I'll write this a third time, so that it might get through that skull of yours:

RPG is the title of a genre, the same way 'platformer' is the title of a genre. Is a game only a platformer if there are platforms in the game? No. It is a platformer if it conforms to the set of game mechanics that defines the platformer genre. You are trying to interpret the term RPG literally, which is wrong in the same way that saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually a Democratic Republic because holy shit it's in the title.

 

[Jed]

Post-modernism and the subsequent semiotic relativism has really fucked this generation's critical thinking skills.

@XanFIIIIRE!: Yes. Any game allows you to play a role, or roleplay, if only in your head. However, for a game to be conisdered a COMPUTER ROLE PLAYING GAME, it must actually give you the mechanics to roleplay. These include, but are not limited to: Stats that govern your avatar's abilites in the game world, NPCs you can interact with and who will react to your avatar's actions, opportunities to improve your avatar's skills, a game world that reacts to your avatar's actions, choice, and consequence.

Afterall, a FPS with no guns isn't much of a shooter, is it?

My diagnosis: RPG noob.
Prognosis: Go play some goddamn PNP, then we'll talk about what constitutes an RPG.

 

[RK47]

Postal 2 is a decent FPS RPG You can get Jesus Rank in that game

 

[kingcomrade]

Post-modernism and the subsequent semiotic relativism has really fucked this generation's critical thinking skills.

You know, I was considering bringing that up, but I was afraid that it would politicize the thread. Though, I suppose that's bound to happen anyways. I expect by page 5 we will be arguing about either the Iraq War, Bush, or Christians.
edit-
not to mention that I am certain this guy has no idea what postmodernism is. Perhaps it is whatever we roleplay it to be?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller:

Arcanum did not deliver everything. The game was good, but not that good.

Xanfire, my dear pal, you have a habit of being vague and generic, pretending that you are making some point. Can you actually specify what exactly ("exactly" might be a new word for you, look it up) Arcanum failed to deliver?

Why is my definition too wide and generic? Becuase you think it is.

No, because according to your definition, every game is an RPG. Which is stupid.

If you think your definition of RPG is the best there is and everyone else is wrong go ahead, but I'll just consider you an idiot.

I didn't say that. Definitions are subjective, but at least my definition defines the genre, granted as I see it, while yours defines games in general.

However my definition, being as genric as it is can be understood by more people.

Try GAEM next time. You'll be surprised how many people would understand this one.

Would I put Diablo II under RPG or Hack'n'Slash?

Dungeon Crawler

 

[Jed]

Shaka, when the walls fell.

Brilliant analogy!

 

[Xanfire]

Thanks for the fun guys!

 

[kingcomrade]

Perhaps a better way to make my point:

There is a genre in literature called fantasy. What is fantasy? According to your line of reasoning, anything that someone fantasizes, which is wrong. The fantasy genre is about the effect of the supernatural (usually magic) on society. That is a specific definition, 'fantasy' doesn't refer to whatever you personally would like it to refer to. This is why, say, "steampunk" is a subgenre of science fiction rather than fantasy, as it is about the effects of technology upon society (in this case, advanced steam technology) or cyberpunk is about the effects of the microprocessor and the Internet upon society or traditional science fiction is about the effects of space travel, etc.
I can fantasize up a science fiction setting, but that doesn't make it fantasy any more the the ability to pretend that I'm "role-playing" sets a game in the RPG genre.

 

[Xanfire]

This is why I love TOK...