Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Eh, that's a stretch at best. We were talking about games that are mechanically similar and only differ in their approach to narratives.
But also - feel free, who knows what's gonna happen. Maybe that particular flight simulator will satisfy some of my RPG needs better than pure RPGs.
For example, I don't normally play roguelikes, much less action-roguelites. But I gave Unexplored a chance based on a recommendation and never regretted that - turned out, the level generation algorithms of that particular roguelites produced exactly the kind of dungeons I find most fun to explore, and did a better job at it than many hand-made games.
No, the only CRPGs that come close to being roleplaying games are NWN/2 persistent worlds where a DM guides your on a quest or adventure, and the team actually roleplays (i.e. does a bit of improvised amateur dramatics, even if only lightly). In that way, both senses of "roleplay" are covered (mechanics and LARPing).
I'm not sure what you mean, how can you have a game where there isn't at least a second party (even if you're solo) - either a living person or the developers or an AI or something like that? The game world has to be made to unfurl before you in some way, you can't do it yourself as you go.
You’re exactly the kind of poster I’m talking about. I don’t know what you’re on about. Shin Megami Tensei is possibly one of the most fun Wiz-likes I’ve played.
I've only played the original Shin Megami Tensei, and it's a fine RPG, arguably more so than some shallow western hack and slash games from that same era like Lands of Lore and World of Xeen. Ironically SMT does a better job at being a CRPG than at emulating Wizardry.
While correct it needs to be mention that tactics simulate efficiency & management (forward thinking) thus one character control can be a tactical game such as Underrail.
1.The study of the most effective ways of securing objectives set by strategy,
4.Expedients for effecting a purpose; plan or mode of procedure with reference to advantage or success; used absolutely, artful or skilful devices for gaining an end.
8.Hence, any system or method of procedure.
A possible exception for role-playing with many character, is for these with multiple personality disorder(which include memory gap). An outside character is a complex thus heavy thing to project thus role playing multiple character is unlikely.
Neither do table-top RPG has dialogue options has often presented in CRPG in menu's, yet they are RPG. One can conclude there is dialogue.
In tactics game such as chess, every move/turn is a choice which has consequence's. Has choice and consequence yet not a RPG.
One can extend it to First Person Shooter's. A frequent choice, even to millisecond degree of where and when to move/aim/shoot and its consequence's.
In CRPG's/RPG's one should specify the choice and consequence to character interactions thus Moral C&C or persona's C&C per what is available or possible according the games world/setting. Simulate a dilemma.
A specific/core/defining quality/aspect that this type of game/genre has a plenty and the other don't.
////////////////////////////////
Much issue/confusion/inaccuracies stem from RPG's being a multiplayer experience. It requires other people.
CRPG is an alternative, a substitute that cant replace/match it, an imitation lacking the adaptability possible by people.
by Unorus Janco description of game A, is the least to qualify as CRPG. it description match a tactic game with exploration. It lacks the imitation of dialogue and its influence/effects which is characteristic for role variant based complex social species.
Simulation/imitation/portrayal of characters with their own will, contrast to mindless pawn, a chess piece.
A role consist of behavior, even if it can be against the player.
If game B and C has dialogue, the ability to talk, which is a game mechanic that game A doesn't have, then all 3 are not mechanically identical for one of them lack it.
If game B and C has dialogue, the ability to talk, which is a game mechanic that game A doesn't have, then all 3 are not mechanically identical for one of them lack it.
1a(1) : a character assigned or assumed had to take on the role of both father and mother
(2) : a socially expected behavior pattern usually determined by an individual's status in a particular society
b : a part played by an actor or singer
2 : a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process played a major role in the negotiations https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/role
But what happens when designers take these same mechanics, and decide to expand the non-interactive aspects of the plot? What if this linear story ends up dwarfing the original player-driven plot? Is it still the same kind of experience?
That's my main gripe with JRPGs. I like RPGs where I get to make choices and determine the outcome of the story, but I also like RPGs with barely any story where it's just my party crawling dungeons.
But when a non-interactive story is added and takes up a major amount of game time, it gets on my fucking nerves and I stop enjoying it. JRPGs are the worst offenders with their slowly typed-out dialog that goes on and on and on, but western AAA games with too many cutscenes are just as bad. I found it really hard to get through the opening sequence of Mass Effect and had to attempt it several times because of how many front-loaded non-interactive cutscenes there are.
The more non-interactive unskippable shit a game pushes on me, the more it puts me off.
Play Shin Megami Tensei series, Dragon Quest 1, Elminage series, The Dark Spire. There are others, but especially SMT and Elminage have little (or no) story elements and are mostly about the dungeon crawl. There are a few SMT titles that are more story heavy (particularly the Devil Survivor series, but that’s a tactics game, not a dungeon crawler).
Game genres exist for a reason, even if they are use rather liberally (eg. Diablo 2 isn't technically an RPG! It's an ARPG! Ultima's an RPG but Path of Exile is also!!! JRPGs are for weebs and they're just visual novels!1!1! Why isn't Zelda is an RPG?! Link never talks! Resident Evil 4 is an RPG!!! The new cawdoody has RPG elements and a level up progression system so how's it not an RPG?!)
I actually had someone tell me that RE4 counts as an RPG and I thought it was the most retarded thing I'd heard outside of game journalists. But, I at least get it, to an extent.
If you lump all games with even a slight hint of what traditionally makes an RPG into the generalized RPG category, you get the Steam definition, which is where everything can be considered an RPG.
If you stick to genres and what a game has *more* of rather than an element of, it's easier to define. OP, Game C could best describe the Persona series.
Often in a lot of things in life, we forget that you don't always have to have one answer for anything. The standards for what an RPG are should simply be separated into specifics that give genres their name, and the standards for each genre tightly upheld so that just because COD gets a UI makeover in the same vein as Arcanum, it would take much more to be considered a CRPG.
To me, RPGcodex is a site primarily based on CRPGs.
Play Shin Megami Tensei series, Dragon Quest 1, Elminage series, The Dark Spire. There are others, but especially SMT and Elminage have little (or no) story elements and are mostly about the dungeon crawl. There are a few SMT titles that are more story heavy (particularly the Devil Survivor series, but that’s a tactics game, not a dungeon crawler).
It is true that DQ1 is not party-based and offers absolutely no choice in character building. It is still one of my favorite RPGs because the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. I think everyone ought to try it at least once.
It is true that DQ1 is not party-based and offers absolutely no choice in character building. It is still one of my favorite RPGs because the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. I think everyone ought to try it at least once.
Well it's true that everyone should try it at least once for historical reasons, especially JRPG players, but the game's your typical storyfag JRPG (yes it is) with a plot completely divorced from its systems. Not only you can't customize your PC in any way, even stats increases and spells learned aren't random but completely set in stone, RPG elements in this game are completely fake (so basically this https://sophiehoulden.com/games/thelinearrpg/ ).
And that's the exact opposite of what the original Wizardry game did. Dragon Quest I is too invested in telling its rigid anime tale, while Wizardry and its Japanese clones are about shaping unique adventures through simulation. Not only they let players create their own characters and define their skills and moral standing (with even some little dilemmas when the game lets the player attack friendly monsters and risk an alignment change), they're games where a couple of unlucky crits can turn a little expedition into a memorable odyssey, and where permanently losing a character (or the whole party) can become a personal tragedy. If RPGs are about (among other things) letting the player write his own story, then Wizardry succeeded handsomely.
Whoever believes that Dragon Quest I plays like Wizardry (or Ultima, for that matter) did not understand a thing. Some sequels like Dragon Quest 3 that let you customize your party members might be different, but the original game cannot qualify as an RPG even under most generous definitions other than just "numbers go up" of course, but then even The Linear RPG qualifies.
It is true that DQ1 is not party-based and offers absolutely no choice in character building. It is still one of my favorite RPGs because the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. I think everyone ought to try it at least once.
Well it's true that everyone should try it at least once for historical reasons, especially JRPG players, but the game's your typical storyfag JRPG (yes it is) with a plot completely divorced from its systems. Not only you can't customize your PC in any way, even stats increases and spells learned aren't random but completely set in stone, RPG elements in this game are completely fake (so basically this https://sophiehoulden.com/games/thelinearrpg/ ).
And that's the exact opposite of what the original Wizardry game did. Dragon Quest I is too invested in telling its rigid anime tale, while Wizardry and its Japanese clones are about shaping unique adventures through simulation. Not only they let players create their own characters and define their skills and moral standing (with even some little dilemmas when the game lets the player attack friendly monsters and risk an alignment change), they're games where a couple of unlucky crits can turn a little expedition into a memorable odyssey, and where permanently losing a character (or the whole party) can become a personal tragedy. If RPGs are about (among other things) letting the player write his own story, then Wizardry succeeded handsomely.
Whoever believes that Dragon Quest I plays like Wizardry (or Ultima, for that matter) did not understand a thing. Some sequels like Dragon Quest 3 that let you customize your party members might be different, but the original game cannot qualify as an RPG even under most generous definitions other than just "numbers go up" of course, but then even The Linear RPG qualifies.
The thing is that whether you think it failed or succeeded, Dragon Quest was originally conceived as a union between Wizardry-style combat and Ultima-style exploration. Yes, the subsequent entries better fulfill this ambition (especially DQ3), but DQ1 is still tightly designed with a fun world to explore and secrets to find. I am unsure why you would call it a storyfag game when the story is extremely barebones. I also think that you’re wrong on the plot/gameplay matching each other. It is not divorced from its systems at all. The gameplay is very simple, and in my opinion, elegant. It’s nowhere near as rigid as you’re implying, except in the case of character development because as you said, it is set in stone. While this likely disqualifies it for many people as being an RPG, it is still an elegantly designed game. It still has RPG combat, and great exploration.
I`ve been playing a lot of the the pixel remaster Android remakes of classic JRPGS and it really drives this home.
remake adds that you touch where you want to go on the screen and it goes there instead of directly moving your hero dude,
there is also a selection for auto-fight button to always be on.
I literally touch the screen like once a min, while I`m doing something else as the game plays itself else, and only pay attention at the few boss battles.
JRPGS got better about this sometime late SNES/ Playstation era.
