PorkaMorka said:Whereas, when presented with C&C the non roleplayer usually either goes for the option with the most reward, or the one that moves the story in a way they personally like (rather than what their character would like) or just the one that doesn't sound dumb (see the failed evil responses in Bioware games).
JarlFrank said:Computer LARPing was defined here as "pretending to do something that doesn't have any effects on the gameworld". Like playing Oblivion and pretending to be a noble and dressing up in fancy clothes and only traveling on horseback and only using silver weapons because that's what nobles do, even though it makes no sense gameplay-wise at all.
That's LARPing in Computer games. Doing something that doesn't have any effect on the gameworld but pretending it does.
Which LARP'ing is all about.Awor Szurkrarz said:It's not LARPing. It's just playing pretend.
Zomg said:The Codex-original use of LARP (basically meaning taking "characterizing actions" with no feedback from the gameworld or more directly, gameplay) was actually useful as criticism even if it was a silly shaming word appropriation. There has to be feedback in the game into and from roleplaying - that's what makes it a roleplaying game. You're still playing to win the game, in an attenuated, exploratory and trivial single player way, like solving a Rubik's Cube or untying a knot, that contextualizes everything else.
All RPGs are combat focused. The majority of stats, skills are all combat oriented. Flowers is not something you equip your character with. And as DA and SoZ showed LARP'ing crowd loves the combat just as well while bashing much better games, especially dungeon-crawlers - some of which have even less combat than this DA of yours.Wyrmlord said:or, as according to the other camp, combat focus does
Edit: I think I misread you a bit, but I'll keep the post here anyway, since I think it still holds to a certain extent, if a little more weakly.Wyrmlord said:Yeah, it just should be emphasised to the C&C crowd that ultimately -
all RPGs have combat. You can't escape it. Sure you can go and criticise a RPG for having too much combat and too little oom-pah-pah, but you're only doing this on the basis of an idealistic vision of a nonexistent game where there has only been oom-pah-pah and no combat, and that this must become the arbitrary standard by which all RPGs to are to be judged.
PorkaMorka said:While the analogy is perhaps most obvious when it is being applied to Oblivion roleplayers or similar, once that analogy has been established, it can then be extended to other groups as a pejorative.
Here it has, of late, predominantly been applied to CRPG gamers who (the speaker feels) place an excessive amount of value on the presence or absence of "Choices and Consequences", to the extent that they will forgive any number of other gameplay flaws. From here on I'll refer to these folks as "C&Cfags" for the sake of brevity. And certainly there is an element on the codex which values C&C way more than would be expected based on the (at times minor) gameplay benefit it provides.
dumbfuck said:If one were to translate a "faggy goth White Wolf Vampire RPG roleplaying session" into a CRPG, the primary element that would distinguish it from other CRPGs would be lots and lots of dialog, with a comparatively higher percentage of gameplay derived from C&C and dialog based stat checks rather than battle and adventure like in a bog standard D&D game.
Rosh said:Such a simple answer for anyone who's been around for a bit. Smile
Let's look at the history of "role-playing game", in a computer context, shall we?
Back in the origins of commercial computer gaming, there really wasn't a "role-playing" genre. "Adventure" had a good number of flavors, ranging from "action-adventure" (based upon the movie genre of the same), "text adventure" (from where everything CRPG started, really, as the interactions are what separates them from action-adventure moreso than text), "dungeon crawler" (which went along the construction styles of text adventure games, but the graphical change was mostly cosmetic when comparing the game structure as a whole), and "traditional adventure" (featuring games like Leisure Suit Larry, King's Quest, etc.), traditional being a bit misleading as it was one of the latest incarnations of the adventure genre but is the one most think of when speaking of adventure games. Only a few at that time, trailing a little from D&D, used "role-playing" in any context; most were sold by merit of adventure capability.
Take the text-based speech interface (but with pre-made responses), add in the point and click roam with world interaction, add in adversaries to be defeated through a stat system while exploring, add in a larger back story (than other genres) and character depth commonly found in many adventure games...whoa! Looks like what we think of a CRPG, isn't it? Hence coined such when it resembled all the combined aspects of tabletop role-playing, and not for the munchkin definition either. It's also interesting to mention that while a CRPG can be a dungeon crawler, a dungeon crawler isn't necessarily a CRPG. Figure out that one. Wink
There you have the literal definition of the CRPG genre and how it came about. So do not mock those old LucasArts and others' adventure games, in whatever form; they gave us what is the RPG today, along with the thousands of text-adventure game authors.
Please do ignore the uneducated kiddies when they tout out the "anything you play a ROLE in is a ROLE-playing game" and back it up with quite indefinite examples such as Diablo. Diablo, quite technically, is "action-adventure", mixed a bit with "dungeon crawler". Of course, to their kind of "logic", Super Mario Brothers is also a CRPG. Smile
Rosh said:Ahhh, an old post, but still relevant with some changes:
=================================
An RPG is a story, simply put.
You know those stories Gary made in the Greyhawk series?
Those were based off of campaigns of his in the early AD&D days.
But an RPG is more than that, when you place a free-thinking individual into the story, much less a game as well. Here's the most important aspects of an RPG, and why they are done the way they are. HOWEVER, this is not in order, but more along a list of what makes up an RPG/ideal CRPG. NPCs here are referring to non-party characters.
1. The story.
2. The character.
3. The setting (including NPCs)
4. Interaction between the character and the story.
5. Interaction between the character and other possible player characters.
6. Interaction between the NPCs and the story.
7. Interaction between the NPCs and the character.
8. Interaction between the NPCs and other NPCs.
9. Interaction of the setting and the story.
10. Interaction between the player and the setting.
11. Interaction between the NPCs and the setting.
12. Variety.
That's FAR from everything that makes up a good RPG. Let me further these points so it's easily understandable.
1: A story is not an excuse for the action, combat, or general repetitive combat. It should be first and foremost at the player's mind, and never set to the back burner.
2: The character should NEVER rely on the reflexes and/or abilities of the player. It's the character the player is playing, thus you use the abilities of the character. True, as a player you might get used to the game and be better at playing it, yet as a player you still have to rely on the stats of the character.
3: Post-apocalyptic? Fantasy? Modern? What's the setting and theme?
4: What is the protagonist's (main character's) purpose in the story? They are there to just go through endless quests, or are they there to serve a mission of great importance? In a good RPG, what the player does is reflected back in the story - hence, nonlinearity. The character indeed does have an impact upon the story, but no good RPG would be without another great detail - how does the story affect the character?
5: Are they a group of bland characters, or do they each have a personality of their own? If each character is played by a person, then it's possible, however doubtful it is to find those good at RPing a character. If they are 'played' by the computer, then do they convey a good sense of personality? A good example would be Planescape: Torment.
6: This only points out what purpose the NPCs have on the story. Are they there to tell you the sword is behind the waterfall over and over, or will they actually match the setting and act in it? A good RPG will have the latter.
7: Is the player character idolized or shunned? It depends on his actions, and the NPC reactions to his actions. This is the dynamic part of an RPG that is indeed hard to accomplish in a CRPG.
8: How do the NPCs 'mesh' into an environment or a 'community'? Are they independent little robots, or are they apparently free-thinking individuals of their own? Do events in the story have them interact with one another, and bring the player in to interact with that aspect of an RPG?
9: This is a very big point. And where a lot of RPG games fail. It seems simple, yet so many fail. You have to 'capture' the feeling of a game through the setting to make the story believable and enjoyable; to give the RPG depth.
10: What does the player do to change the setting? This ties hand in hand with number 7, and creates an environment for the player to explore and mold into how they play.
11: What do the events that the NPCs do that tie into the setting? This ties into the story and everything else.
12: No two games played in a particular CRPG should be the same. Each time should be a near or totally unique experience. Non-linearity is the epitome of this trait of RPG games.
Wasteland was a beginning, Fallout was a shining example. Planescape: Torment was a brilliant introduction to the CRPG genre, and it's held to be the best CRPG to date by many, mainly faulted for the engine chosen.
==============
A CRPG is comprised of the above because if it were lacking significant elements, then it would fall into the genre that quite adequately already categorizes it. Without a deep back-story and character interaction? Then it would likely fit into action-adventure/dungeon crawler. No character interaction and no real setting or story? That pretty much makes it into an action-adventure/dungeon crawler as well. Just character interaction? Sounds more like a text adventure or a traditional adventure (which, believe it or not, most hentai games follow). Yes, a CRPG can be devoid of any obvious stats like exp or hp, but there needs something to denote (even behind the hood, so to speak) what progress and influence the player's character(s) have made upon the world/people/environ. It takes all these elements in combination to deliver as close to a P&P role-playing experience as possible.
The Sims and GTA fail to be a CRPG on many accounts. With the latter, there's not much free action to go around as the game is linear with progressive paths. It sorely misses the interaction with NPCs (no choices at all, really) and the world on any scale other than to kill hordes of enemies and...hey! There's already a genre for that. The Sims is nothing more than character interaction and environment interaction, but it really misses because there is no story, no real setting. It is more akin to...oh, hey, there's already a genre for The Sims. SIMULATION! Smile
That is why I had brought up one of the major origins (no pun intended) of the CRPG genre, Ultima IV (Wasteland, some of the TSR games, included). Here is a world in which your conduct is reflected in how various people react to you. Most every action had a reaction by the world and not in a "guards see you steal and kill j00!" simplistic kind of way. At this point, people in the world would respond to you in various ways depending upon your virtues, which was pretty much unheard of and not practiced anywhere outside of P&P RPGs.
It also failed to fall into any of the Adventure sub-genres at that point because it more resembled all of the sub-genres, heralded at the time of its release and for a long time to be a real computer role-playing experience (or at least as best as could be at that time). Many of the kids around the gaming industry are a bit too young to remember that game well, I'm afraid. Many were still having their drawers scraped out by their mothers when Ultima IV came out and many more are too vapid to get over the graphics.
Another one, Wasteland, was also around before "CRPG" got popular. The cover tag-line for this one was "Adventure in Post-Nuclear America". You could even check out the back of the box to see...absolutely no mention of "role-playing game", but instead there's a lot of detailing of all the aspects of CRPGs that we have come to expect from such a genre. The same goes with the Bard's Tale series, I believe, which was always filed under "Adventure". Yes, it is because of games of that construction that a more defining genre title came about. Newbies to the game industry think that Wizardry originated as a CRPG (which it had not), or that the CRPG genre has been around a long time. In some ways, it has, but has only been called such recently. Beforehand they were instead called "bloody good games with a lot of play". Smile
The only ones to really benefit from the obfuscation of the CRPG meaning are publishers who want to capitalize upon that market and those who want Diablo (or some other stat-driven game) to be considered to be a CRPG in some vain fanboyism to excuse Blizzard or whomever from calling it and Diablo II the best-selling role-playing games to date.
Not really no. If you can see they both bash the "Diablo is a RPG" view and "RPG is where you play a Role" (the one that C&C crowd holds so much to) together with talking about how character skill must be the only thing there not the player's skill (something evil mondblutians talk about).janjetina said:It is ironic that Rosh, Siant Proverbius and VD would be labeled as "LARPers" by some mondblutians and their newfag followers like PorkaMorka.
Except modern "RPGs" don't have half of things Rosh has on his list.. The problem is that in current "RPGs" dialogues serve no other purprose but to fluff stuff up - as in don't do anything - thus LARP'ing. And yes - they are mostly about combat too, putting everything else on the secondary places game-time wise. Like C&C-crowd favorites SoZ, TW, Mass Effect and now DA which is an epitome of LARP'ing with 4 dialogues leading to the exactly same outcome and none C&C that influence the plot in any way at all. The combat is also awful in all 4 of them as other things like character development and exploration sacrificed in the name of dialogue-tree-fluff.Roshambo's post easily disposes with the false dichotomy between story and combat, or C&C and combat that is pepetuated by some mondblutians and trolls like Wyrmlord. Indeed a RPG should excel in all the aforementioned elements and there is no valid reason against it - combat engine, story and setting design don't necessarily compete for the same resources.
janjetina said:When the player character is presented with a difficult multiple choice where each part has its own reward and drawback, and each choice will result in a different reaction in the game world, opening some possibilities and closing others, it has a significant (not minor, as you claim) immediate impact on the gameplay, as it entices the player to think on his actions. Additionaly, its effect on the replayability of the game is enormous, and everybody with brain knows that the replayable games are those that are considered the best, even decades after they are published, while one trick ponies fall into oblivion.
janjetina said:
If one were to translate "Crime and Punishment" into a CRPG , the primary element that would distinguish it from other CRPGs would be lots and lots of dialog, with a comparatively higher percentage of gameplay derived from C&C and dialog based stat checks rather than battle and adventure like in a bog standard D&D game.
janjetina said:Roshambo's post easily disposes with the false dichotomy between story and combat, or C&C and combat that is pepetuated by some mondblutians and trolls like Wyrmlord. Indeed a RPG should excel in all the aforementioned elements and there is no valid reason against it - combat engine, story and setting design don't necessarily compete for the same resources.
MetalCraze said:Not really no. If you can see they both bash the "Diablo is a RPG" view and "RPG is where you play a Role" (the one that C&C crowd holds so much to) together with talking about how character skill must be the only thing there not the player's skill (something evil mondblutians talk about).janjetina said:It is ironic that Rosh, Siant Proverbius and VD would be labeled as "LARPers" by some mondblutians and their newfag followers like PorkaMorka.
What they bash is the new (at the time) breed of action-RPGs and Diablo clones e.g. unrelated to this topic.
Except modern "RPGs" don't have half of things Rosh has on his list.. The problem is that in current "RPGs" dialogues serve no other purprose but to fluff stuff up - as in don't do anything - thus LARP'ing.
And yes - they are mostly about combat too, putting everything else on the secondary places game-time wise. Like C&C-crowd favorites SoZ, TW, Mass Effect and now DA which is an epitome of LARP'ing with 4 dialogues leading to the exactly same outcome and none C&C that influence the plot in any way at all.
The combat is also awful in all 4 of them as other things like character development and exploration sacrificed in the name of dialogue-tree-fluff.
A good dungeon crawler in fact has more of what Rosh wrote than what we have these days
- except instead of selecting dialogues and pretending that it will change something you type in keywords or in case of Dark Sun - selecting actual dialogues. And last time I've checked Dark Sun wasn't called a "LARP-RPG". I wonder why?
I agree with most of your post, but this is pretty clearly not the case. The setting is going to inform the character system and the combat system- a combat system for a medieval setting is going to be quite different than a combat system made for a science fiction setting. The dialogues are going to be informed by the character system- they'll be written quite differently if you have, for instance, a sense motive/streetwise skill than if you don't, and, in a good RPG, stats that aid combat could very well aid in intimidation options (such as using weapon skill to intimidate bandits in Darklands or using STR to intimidate people in Prelude to Darkness).janjetina said:First of all, character system and combat system are done separately from the story, setting, characters and dialogues.
Diablo and especially its copycats was fucking dose of slow poison administered to a genre.Wyrmlord said:Rosh's disdain of Diablo and obsession with characterizing and differentiating it is a very pointless endeavour on his part, considering that Diablo was just a real-time version of roguelikes, which have largely been considered RPGs out of convention. It's only a matter of general similarity, nothing more, but I am amazed by people who dedicate so much time and effort to "proving" Diablo is not a RPG.
MetalCraze said:JarlFrank said:Computer LARPing was defined here as "pretending to do something that doesn't have any effects on the gameworld". Like playing Oblivion and pretending to be a noble and dressing up in fancy clothes and only traveling on horseback and only using silver weapons because that's what nobles do, even though it makes no sense gameplay-wise at all.
That's LARPing in Computer games. Doing something that doesn't have any effect on the gameworld but pretending it does.
JarlFrank makes too much sense.
Which LARP'ing is all about.Awor Szurkrarz said:It's not LARPing. It's just playing pretend.
Zomg said:The Codex-original use of LARP (basically meaning taking "characterizing actions" with no feedback from the gameworld or more directly, gameplay) was actually useful as criticism even if it was a silly shaming word appropriation. There has to be feedback in the game into and from roleplaying - that's what makes it a roleplaying game. You're still playing to win the game, in an attenuated, exploratory and trivial single player way, like solving a Rubik's Cube or untying a knot, that contextualizes everything else.
Exactly.
It's also fun to watch how LARP'ing crowd cries about how they want C&C so hard and won't have the game the other way - but then praise Dragon Age which has none with various excuses which sometimes sound very close to "but I can select the option which makes my character join Grey Wardens willingly making him good!"
And then become offended when they are being called LARP'ers.
They just want to play dialogue-trees which is the only truth.
All RPGs are combat focused. The majority of stats, skills are all combat oriented. Flowers is not something you equip your character with. And as DA and SoZ showed LARP'ing crowd loves the combat just as well while bashing much better games, especially dungeon-crawlers - some of which have even less combat than this DA of yours.Wyrmlord said:or, as according to the other camp, combat focus does
Like Realms of Arkania where most of the time you spend exploring, solving puzzles and managing your party with some dungeons having as much as 2 or 3 combat encounters. Sweet lil irony there, aye?
Zomg said:Wow, which GF is that?