St. Toxic
Arcane
I know it's been mentioned over here that the defenition of rpg's often finds itself a little skewed out there in the real world. Maybe you've thrown some cocks around about what actually makes an rpg, except for the obvious "RPG" lable on the game box that sort of prooves everything, and some of you probably went into a frenzied quality discussion, after fooling yourselves that it's so subjective there's nothing concrete to stand on. If so, I don't want to rake that up. Then again, the codex is 'putting the "role" back in rpg', which by my standards isn't exactly what's missing out of the new-gen trash.
Now, I've been following a selfmade thesis about what factors make an rpg, be it piece of shit or golden nugget ( because that's pretty objective ) and while it's not especially enlightening, it beats the crap out of "GAEM WHERE U PLAY ROLE" defenition ( which isn't just mongoloid standard -- it's market standard ) and I guess I'd like some feedback on this age old idea of mine.
Firstly, it's a simple formula consisting of 4 core rules: The choice of skills, the impact of chosen skills, the choice of action, the impact of chosen action.
Meaning;
1) The skills may not be chosen for you, or progressed in 'mmo style', as the choice of recieving the skill upgrade is not instantaneous and thus partly a choice of game mechanics.
2) Actions adherent to the skill base may not be inconsequent of the character's skill% level. This statement leaves room for numeral ranking, 1 (actions 100% reliant on skill% [you're flying a plane set on Auto-Pilot]) - 5(actions barely reliant on skill% [you're doing the rough work while getting cookies thrown at you]), and can partly define cRPG's as having 'lite', 'medium' or 'heavy' skill impact.
3) The game must at some time or other present the player with a choice of action, which in accordance to rule 4 will have some impact on the game world. This statement leaves room for numeral ranking, 1 (choice heavy [You figure "Screw the invasion main-quest!" and go underground to let the world fall into chaos]) - 5(choice lite [You approach the dungeon by a secret tunnel and in the cloak of shadows, instead of the obvious caved entrance]), and can partly define cRPG's as having 'lite', 'medium' or 'heavy' choice ratio.
4) The choices made within the game will never go unnoticed by the game. This statement leaves room for numeral ranking, 1 (impact heavy [Travelling by sea in prefference over land has after 5 years of adventuring gained you a +2 general resistance to bad friggin weather]) - 5(choice lite [You chose Door N. 2 and got a shiny gem instead of a rubber chicken]), and can partly define cRPG's as having 'lite', 'medium' or 'heavy' choice impact ratio.
If a game keeps scoring 5's, it's pushing itself over to a cARPG defeniton. It doesn't make it inferior or less fun, but in need of genre redefenition.
Example of application:
Oblivion
1) Skills outside of ch. creation are added to my character based on the actions I perform, forming the character around me in contrast to me around my character. Failed.
2) While skills give bonuses, they are of no greater consequence to my actions, and I am never dependant on my character's skills. Rating outside of scale. Failed.
3) Barely 5 in combat situations. Rating outside of scale in quest situations. Failed.
4) No sacrifice = No choice. Failed.
Conclusion: FPF with MMO mechanics and exploration and great possibilities for cLARP.
Diablo
1) Selectable at level up and in ch. creation, right? Check.
2) RT-combat. Reflex based gameplay. 3-4. Check.
3) Few such presentations, beyond equipment managment, trade and shortcuts. 4-5. Check.
4) The few choices made have some minor impact on my performance. 5. Check.
Conclusion: cARPG.
Fallout
1) Selectable at level up and in ch. creation. Check.
2) TB-combat. Actions responsive to stats and skills. 2. Check.
3) In abundance. 2. Check.
4) Quest results and choices impact on gameworld to some degree. 2-3.
Conclusion: cRPG
As said ten times, it holds no defenition on quality, only genre. The 4 basic rules can be webbed together, and there are a couple of good combinations. Having tossed this subject around I have been given no coherent, unbiased addition to the ruleset, and thus consider it concrete, core material. This thesis assumes that pure cRPG's are closer connected to dynamic adventure games than they are to action-heavy dungeon crawlers, as both are a reasonable step up from pnp, each representing a different crowd of players.
Now, I've been following a selfmade thesis about what factors make an rpg, be it piece of shit or golden nugget ( because that's pretty objective ) and while it's not especially enlightening, it beats the crap out of "GAEM WHERE U PLAY ROLE" defenition ( which isn't just mongoloid standard -- it's market standard ) and I guess I'd like some feedback on this age old idea of mine.
Firstly, it's a simple formula consisting of 4 core rules: The choice of skills, the impact of chosen skills, the choice of action, the impact of chosen action.
Meaning;
1) The skills may not be chosen for you, or progressed in 'mmo style', as the choice of recieving the skill upgrade is not instantaneous and thus partly a choice of game mechanics.
2) Actions adherent to the skill base may not be inconsequent of the character's skill% level. This statement leaves room for numeral ranking, 1 (actions 100% reliant on skill% [you're flying a plane set on Auto-Pilot]) - 5(actions barely reliant on skill% [you're doing the rough work while getting cookies thrown at you]), and can partly define cRPG's as having 'lite', 'medium' or 'heavy' skill impact.
3) The game must at some time or other present the player with a choice of action, which in accordance to rule 4 will have some impact on the game world. This statement leaves room for numeral ranking, 1 (choice heavy [You figure "Screw the invasion main-quest!" and go underground to let the world fall into chaos]) - 5(choice lite [You approach the dungeon by a secret tunnel and in the cloak of shadows, instead of the obvious caved entrance]), and can partly define cRPG's as having 'lite', 'medium' or 'heavy' choice ratio.
4) The choices made within the game will never go unnoticed by the game. This statement leaves room for numeral ranking, 1 (impact heavy [Travelling by sea in prefference over land has after 5 years of adventuring gained you a +2 general resistance to bad friggin weather]) - 5(choice lite [You chose Door N. 2 and got a shiny gem instead of a rubber chicken]), and can partly define cRPG's as having 'lite', 'medium' or 'heavy' choice impact ratio.
If a game keeps scoring 5's, it's pushing itself over to a cARPG defeniton. It doesn't make it inferior or less fun, but in need of genre redefenition.
Example of application:
Oblivion
1) Skills outside of ch. creation are added to my character based on the actions I perform, forming the character around me in contrast to me around my character. Failed.
2) While skills give bonuses, they are of no greater consequence to my actions, and I am never dependant on my character's skills. Rating outside of scale. Failed.
3) Barely 5 in combat situations. Rating outside of scale in quest situations. Failed.
4) No sacrifice = No choice. Failed.
Conclusion: FPF with MMO mechanics and exploration and great possibilities for cLARP.
Diablo
1) Selectable at level up and in ch. creation, right? Check.
2) RT-combat. Reflex based gameplay. 3-4. Check.
3) Few such presentations, beyond equipment managment, trade and shortcuts. 4-5. Check.
4) The few choices made have some minor impact on my performance. 5. Check.
Conclusion: cARPG.
Fallout
1) Selectable at level up and in ch. creation. Check.
2) TB-combat. Actions responsive to stats and skills. 2. Check.
3) In abundance. 2. Check.
4) Quest results and choices impact on gameworld to some degree. 2-3.
Conclusion: cRPG
As said ten times, it holds no defenition on quality, only genre. The 4 basic rules can be webbed together, and there are a couple of good combinations. Having tossed this subject around I have been given no coherent, unbiased addition to the ruleset, and thus consider it concrete, core material. This thesis assumes that pure cRPG's are closer connected to dynamic adventure games than they are to action-heavy dungeon crawlers, as both are a reasonable step up from pnp, each representing a different crowd of players.
.
