Is there such a thing as an "Action RPG"? Poll inside

[Sigourn]

I'm not going to post game examples, I'm not going to expand the poll option descriptions to include game examples, I'm not going to do any of that thing because the Internet has shown time and time again that the minute you do that, things go to hell.

So I keep it in simple terms. Can YOU think of "Action RPGs"? I personally do. While I'm aware the most recent Codex "best RPGs" polls show the forum DOES agree Action RPGs exists, I want to see just how many people disagree with it.

 

[Brainlet2]

There can be an action game with rpg elements, but the idea of action rpgs is stupid

 

[Glop_dweller]

The action RPGs that I know of, generally do not implement consequential dialog, or ammo limitations, so this kind of makes it impossible to roleplay what the character would do in the given situations, even if they were simplistic enough souls who would choose to just endlessly shoot at enemies until everything in sight was destroyed—unless they have magical (never empty) range weapons. So no, I don't acknowledge so-called aRPGs as actual RPGs of any sort. But I will say that the aRPGs often seem to have the best gameplay, and can be quite fun to play.

 

[Lacrymas]

"Action RPG" is an oxymoron.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I have two questions:
1. What is an action game?
2. What is an RPG?

 

[InD_ImaginE]

No.

We just need to know what is an RPG?

 

[Machocruz]

These are two different questions to me. There is objectively a genre of Action RPG, it's been around since the 80s. so yes there is such a thing. But no an action game cannot simultaneously BE a RPG (which is not what the genre name is getting at anyway), but it can have some RPG.

 

[SniperHF]

I think saying something people have been calling Action RPGs for a couple decades now isn't actually what it's called is similar crap logic as going back and calling Wizardry a non-rpg cause it lacks choices and consequences or whatever.

This doesn't mean Action RPGs are particularly good at the RPG part in most cases, but they do attempt it.

 

[Glop_dweller]

I have two questions:
1. What is an action game?
2. What is an RPG?

1.) A game focused upon constant, and frenetic engagement; with limited down time.

2.) A game designed as a reactionary engine focused on supporting [relatively] in-depth conversational interaction for a variety of defined or customized characters; ideally whose strengths, and limitations strongly restrict & curtail the player's available options in the gameworld... IE. limiting the player to only to what their current character can personally know or manage to accomplish.

 

[MpuMngwana]

If we assume there is no such thing as an action RPG because MUH REFLEXES IS PLAYER SKILL RPG ONLY HAVE CHARACTER SKILL REEEEE then we must also assume there is no such thing as a tactical RPG because MUH TACTICS IS PLAYER SKILL RPG ONLY HAVE CHARACTER SKILL REEEEE. I think such line of thinking is dumb, because any game that requires no player skill to succeed is probably really fucking boring (at best you get something like AoD talker playthrough).

 

[Sigourn]

These are two different questions to me. There is objectively a genre of Action RPG, it's been around since the 80s. so yes there is such a thing. But no an action game cannot simultaneously BE a RPG (which is not what the genre name is getting at anyway), but it can have some RPG.

Yes, what I mean is "would you agree an RPG can simultaneously have action combat?".

 

[Sigourn]

To make it easier on the voters:

• Deus Ex
• The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
  
• Gothic
• Fallout: New Vegas
• Dark Souls

If you agree ANY of those is an RPG, then Action RPGs do exist. The point isn't whether all of those are RPGs. Only whether it is possible to have an Action RPG.

 

[Jacob]

Someone has to come up and say that this kind of thread is pointless. I don't really enjoy it but I'll take the responsibility. Hope you come to your senses someday, OP.

 

[Butter]

There's no such thing as an action game. I'm on to you, OP.

 

[Machocruz]

Yes, what I mean is "would you agree an RPG can simultaneously have action combat?".

I would say yes, but within certain parameters that should be obvious. If you are playing like a regular guy in a wheelchair, he can still be a combatant of some sort (e.g. novice gunman), but the tenor of action should reflect his level of capability. No amount of shooter skill should turn the shit into Quake 3. Conversely, low action shooter skills should not make him far more ineffective than the character is set up to be.

To make it easier on the voters:

• Deus Ex
• The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
  
• Gothic
• Fallout: New Vegas
• Dark Souls

If you agree ANY of those is an RPG, then Action RPGs do exist. The point isn't whether all of those are RPGs. Only whether it is possible to have an Action RPG.

Actually I say most of those are straight RPGs (taking into account the differences in electronic and tabletop media and single char vs. party), I don't see them as ARPGs*. I've said elsewhere that player arcade dexterity will not make up for low character skills in DX, MW, or New Vegas, and I doubt Gothic, though I haven't played it. Maybe a little more than a less dexterous person, but not a great amount. And for single character games, real time combat is the most sensible choice in most cases. Only roguelikes and Underrail have succeeded at single character TB/whatever you call classic RL combat, imo. And really the tempo of an action game is very different from any of those games excluding DkS, which is the only game that is close to being good as a straight action game.

*I came up in the 80s on consoles and arcades, so this is where I saw the whole ARPG thing start. Very simple hack and slash arcade-like games , mostly made in Japan with the most simplistic of RPG mechanics. Established well before any of the FAR more sophisticated games listed above.

 

[Lady_Error]

The thing is that since Dingeon Master and Eye of the Beholder it has been accepted that Action RPG's are RPG's, mostly because aside from real-time combat they had everything that turn-based RPG's have as well.

They even looked almost exactly the same and had similar fantasy-based settings.

And while it makes more sense to call them action games with RPG elements, it doesn't really matter. Other than they keep getting included in the RPG lists.

 

[AwesomeButton]

3. Is an Action RPG an RPG?

 

[The Bishop]

RPGs by their nature are not well suited for action. When firing a hand held rocket launcher the last thing you want to do is advertise your position to the enemy, since you really can't take a lot of return fire. Therefore RPG squads are well advised to stay hidden as much as they can, turning their RPGs into more of a tactical option on the battlefield.

Though of course there are ways to use RPGs in more direct manner. For example you can simply take the safety cap of your RPG grenade and swing yourself at the target in a superman punch. Bring yourself right into action as they say. This is the closest you can get to action RPG I think.

 

[Swigen]

RPGs by their nature are not well suited for action. When firing a hand held rocket launcher the last thing you want to do is advertise your position to the enemy, since you really can't take a lot of return fire. Therefore RPG squads are well advised to stay hidden as much as they can, turning their RPGs into more of a tactical option on the battlefield.

Though of course there are ways to use RPGs in more direct manner. For example you can simply take the safety cap of your RPG grenade and swing yourself at the target in a superman punch. Bring yourself right into action as they say. This is the closest you can get to action RPG I think.

Horseshit statement. Half my platoon was killed by an rpg launched from a hidden location and it fell on me to call the brothel most frequented by our guys and tell their favorite whores their boys was killed by enemy ACTION!!

 

[Ivan]

yes

 

[Papa Môlé]

Obviously an RPG can have twitchy combat mechanics. The more interesting question is to what extent, if any, does a fast-paced and reflex-based combat, from a designer and/or player perspective, push the game to be developed or played in a certain way -- a way that perhaps makes the game less about interacting with a world, characters, and a narrative and more about seeking excitement and defeating challenges. It certainly seems twitchiness in general, because it engages the fast-think mode of the mind as well as gives immediate satisfaction through adrenaline rush makes the more slow-thinking and long-term enjoyment of morally weighing choices and consequences or roleplaying a character less likely to be prominent.

On the other hand, games with action combat are some of the best C&C RPGs of all time, like Deus Ex, Morrowind, New Vegas, etc. However, these games also both allow and strongly encourage alternative approaches to combat like stealth or even avoiding combat entirely through character-based skill checks. So, if a game is going to have action combat I'd say it needs to be only one option to approaching the solving of problems, yet this almost always makes the action combat worse than a full blown action game. Given that, one wonders why have action-based combat at all since it would appear you either lose "RPG"ness or simply get inferior action combat to an actual action game.




EDIT: Making a serious poast in 2019

 

[smaug]

First-person real time, yes.

Third person, no.

Yes, I am racist.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Action RPGs cannot be RPGs therefore Gothic 2, FNV, ELEX, etc., are not RPGs.

 

[sputtering fart balloon]

There are action RPGs, just barely, such as New Vegas and the like. But that slope is so damn slippery even Jack Frost fell off it.

I really don't even like these common definitions of "rpg" like "has involved character creation and meaningful choices." What people are really looking for is a Unity of Effect™ as explained by Edgar Allan Poe here: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/poe/composition.html i.e., it is more about an emotional response, in the case of rpgs "it" being more about a similar feeling related to the legacy of grognard games, tabletop and video, from the 90s rather than some contextless technicality which leads to such epic takes as "Dark Souls is an rpg." Obviously that statement goes against the spirit of what people have meant by "rpg" for some years and the people who like what was always called rpgs are not necessarily going to be interested in Dark Souls, so the label becomes useless when used this way.

This is the 80th time I've seen this thread in my one month on the codex but I figure this is a new approach to the argument. People are looking for feels similar to extant games; if you use the common, soulless definition of "rpg" that floats around nowadays, in 100 years "rpgs" will be unrecognizable. But other genres do not suffer this fate. Poe's horror is still "horror" almost 200 years later, rpgs haven't even been around half that long.

 

[Carrion]

ARPGs are a thing that exists and a subgenre of cRPGs, although I don't think most action RPGs qualify as "true" RPGs since they tend to feature a level of asymmetry in their mechanics, for example having different rules and defining stats for the player character and the NPCs. The "A" is there for a reason and indicates that we're essentially talking about hybrids. That being said, disqualifying a game New Vegas from being an RPG would be dumb since it gives you more legit roleplaying options than the vast majority of games based on tabletop systems. All that is good in it stems from the RPG side of things, whereas its most glaring weaknesses are related to the "action game" part.