RPGs cannot have action-based movement or combat, Fallout: New Vegas is not an RPG

[Morality Games]

I'm just saying that this isn't anything new and it isn't just for the sake of being contrarian. It isn't an RPG, though, it's a shooter. If we allow New Vegas to be counted as an RPG, we might as well just remove that genre from existence, it obviously doesn't mean or define anything.

You might as well say that computer games can't be RPGs, or that games that aren't pen and paper can't be RPGs, or that games that don't involve a game master and multiple players can't be RPGs.

Why not?

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

I did say it's an action-RPG even 2 years ago, I have since changed my position to "there is no such thing as an action-RPG, that's an oxymoron". It's not "I know it when I see it", it's how you define genres as a whole, clumping together similar things and describing what makes them similar. Saying Fallout 1-2 and Gothic are "the same genre" is inane. Roqua is correct.

Other than their combat mechanics and camera angles, Gothic and Fallout have a tremendous amount in common, so I don't see what's inane about making them part of the same genre, especially if we acknowledge that they belong to different sub-genres. Saying Fallout is a turn-based RPG and Gothic is an action RPG actually does a very good job of communicating what makes them similar (all the role playing!) and what makes them different. Whereas saying Fallout is an RPG and Gothic is an action game obscures more than it illuminates. Since an action-RPG very obviously isn't going to have menu based combat, I don't see what could possibly be confusing or misleading about the term.

Saying Fallout and Gothic belong to different genres is like saying D&D and Spellbound Kingdoms don't belong to the same genre because they have very different combat systems. Spellbound Kingdoms places much more emphasis on immediately anticipating your opponent's next moves (it's a simultaneous turn-based system where your actions are limited by particular combat styles, as well as your last maneuver, so you can't go from lunging one turn to doing a backflip the next). Mostly you get fights that are all about guessing what your enemies and allies are going to pull at the same time, much as you need to anticipate your enemies and properly time your moves in an ARPG. It flows very differently from D&D, but they're both role playing games.

Here is the combat primer: http://www.spellboundkingdoms.com/SKCombatPrimer.pdf

Hell, call it the difference between LARPing and tabletop if you want. IRL LARPers are still role playing.

While I understand your desire for a clear, simple definition, I think we could stand to learn from H.L. Mencken here: "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

 

[Sigourn]

Saying Fallout 1-2 and Gothic are "the same genre" is inane. Roqua is correct.

Only if you think RPGs revolve solely around combat. To me, Gothic satisfies the RPG craving in a way God of War (a real action game) doesn't even come close to. Why? Because one is an RPG first and foremost, and the other isn't.

It's not surprising that a lot of Codexers who like RPGs also like strategy games. This implies that, what they are actually behind, is tactical combat, and any game that isn't like that is crap.

 

[Bladeract]

I did say it's an action-RPG even 2 years ago, I have since changed my position to "there is no such thing as an action-RPG, that's an oxymoron". It's not "I know it when I see it", it's how you define genres as a whole, clumping together similar things and describing what makes them similar. Saying Fallout 1-2 and Gothic are "the same genre" is inane. Roqua is correct.

Other than their combat mechanics and camera angles, Gothic and Fallout have a tremendous amount in common, so I don't see what's inane about making them part of the same genre, especially if we acknowledge that they belong to different sub-genres. Saying Fallout is a turn-based RPG and Gothic is an action RPG actually does a very good job of communicating what makes them similar (all the role playing!) and what makes them different. Whereas saying Fallout is an RPG and Gothic is an action game obscures more than it illuminates. Since an action-RPG very obviously isn't going to have menu based combat, I don't see what could possibly be confusing or misleading about the term.

Saying Fallout and Gothic belong to different genres is like saying D&D and Spellbound Kingdoms don't belong to the same genre because they have very different combat systems. Spellbound Kingdoms places much more emphasis on immediately anticipating your opponent's next moves (it's a simultaneous turn-based system where your actions are limited by particular combat styles, as well as your last maneuver, so you can't go from lunging one turn to doing a backflip the next). Mostly you get fights that are all about guessing what your enemies and allies are going to pull at the same time, much as you need to anticipate your enemies and properly time your moves in an ARPG.

Here is the combat primer: http://www.spellboundkingdoms.com/SKCombatPrimer.pdf

Hell, call it the difference between LARPing and tabletop if you want. IRL LARPers are still role playing.

While I understand your desire for a clear, simple definition, I think we could stand to learn from H.L. Mencken here: "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Gothic has zero in common with Fallout. You like both games for reasons that are nothing to do with RPGness of them.

Gothic clearly has nothing to do with RPGs, too. There is no RPG mechanics of note. The game is almost pure action for its 'gameplay', such as it is. In gothic you talk to people, and in fallout you talk to people, that is the only similarity. You talk to people in virtually every console game today though.

 

[Sigourn]

Gothic has zero in common with Fallout. You like both games for reasons that are nothing to do with RPGness of them.

Gothic clearly has nothing to do with RPGs, too. There is no RPG mechanics of note. The game is almost pure action for its 'gameplay', such as it is. In gothic you talk to people, and in fallout you talk to people, that is the only similarity. You talk to people in virtually every console game today though.

It's easier for me to list the only major difference between Gothic and Fallout than it is for me to list all the similarities. So here it is:

- One has combat that relies on reflexes, and the other doesn't.

That's literally it. So much for "they have nothing in common". You could additionally list "one is third person and the other is third person with an isometric camera", but that's just a consequence of the combat system. Even better if we use New Vegas, as you can play anyone you want in that game. Also

You like both games for reasons that are nothing to do with RPGness of them.

Not an argument. You aren't inside our heads.

 

[Lacrymas]

If we remove the combat then Gothic can be compared even less to Fallout, so that isn't strengthening your argument.

While I understand your desire for a clear, simple definition, I think we could stand to learn from H.L. Mencken here: "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Nothing of what I have said is "simple", it wouldn't cause such a massive amount of buttmadness if it was. "Action RPG" says absolutely nothing to me apart from how the movement and combat is handled, it's an even more meaningless and nonsensical verbiage. If New Vegas, Mass Effect, Morrowind, Gothic, Fallout 3, VtMB and whatever else are all "action RPGs", where is this headed? And all of this is clumped together with Fallout 1-2, BG1-2, AoD, PoE, UnderRail, Arcanum and whatever else into the "RPG" category, it comes out as a jumbled mess that is clear everyone is throwing games into because they don't know where else to put them or have enshrined the word "RPG" and think it's some kind of honorific. There can't be an action PnP game, so the comparison is totally inadequate, that's even more nonsensical lololol.

 

[Sigourn]

If we remove the combat then Gothic can be compared even less to Fallout, so that isn't strengthening your argument.

Elaborate.

"Action RPG" says absolutely nothing to me apart from how the movement and combat is handled, it's an even more meaningless and nonsensical verbiage.

It's actually incredibly useful. As a matter of fact: it would help you to automatically dismiss certain RPGs, like New Vegas and Deus Ex.

 

[Big Wrangle]

"Action RPG" says absolutely nothing to me apart from how the movement and combat is handled

That's exactly what the term is used for though, why should it say something else out of the ass?

There can't be an action PnP game

If we wanna get that technical, every single RPG is an action PnP as the dice rolls are done with in a second, meaning it is faster paced.

 

[Bladeract]

It's easier for me to list the only major difference between Gothic and Fallout than it is for me to list all the similarities. So here it is:

- One has combat that relies on reflexes, and the other doesn't.

That's literally it. So much for "they have nothing in common". You could additionally list "one is third person and the other is third person with an isometric camera", but that's just a consequence of the combat system. Even better if we use New Vegas, as you can play anyone you want in that game. Also

Fallout has party members and has very significant character building RPG system. Gothic has no mechanics of any note, the only thing that really affects gameplay is getting better armor. There is absolutely no tactics in gothic combat, in fallout positioning of the player does matter at least some so there is some tactical element.

And I have to lol at the 'just reflex combat' comment. The only difference between chess and fencing is that one has reflex based combat and the other does not.

Yeah the gameplay is completely different and that is the 'only' difference between the games. It just shows the attitude you have, that the gameplay is totally inconsequential to the genre, which is just a position that does not make sense.

Not an argument. You aren't inside our heads.

Yes it's so hard to tell when people like stuff for art direction and thematic reasons, especially when that is the reason people usually like things not because of a particular genre.

 

[Sacred82]

Sacred82

Quite simple really: You can think of how many aspects of the game the RPG elements (character stats and its advancement) contribute. Does it contribute to combat (D&D based games, Ultimas, arx fatalis, witchers, deus ex)? Does it contribute to exploration themes such as survival (Expeditions, Deus ex), Stealth (D&D based games, Deus ex), interaction (also D&D based games, Vampire: The Masquerade). Does it affect C&C in the game i.e. change actual story outcomes based on stats (MoTB, Expeditions)? Does it affect gameplay (D&D based games with multiclassing, Dark Messiah etc)?

The more core gameplay the RPG elements affect, the more "RPGness" you can see in the game.

Let's say the stats in our shooter only contribute to combat, but they contribute a whole fucking lot to the entirety of the gameplay because that's all there is to it. How would that measure up in terms of concentration, seeing as there is no survival, stealth or interaction to begin with?

 

[Lacrymas]

That's exactly what the term is used for though, why should it say something else out of the ass?

"Action game" is enough then.

Elaborate.

Apart from "stats affect combat in some way", there is nothing else the two have in common. Going around in an open world and talking to people is hardly a criteria exclusive to RPGness.

 

[Sigourn]

Fallout has party members and has very significant character building RPG system

None of which decide whether a game is an RPG or not. Gothic has no companions, but it certainly has a significant character building system.

There is absolutely no tactics in gothic combat, in fallout positioning of the player does matter at least some so there is some tactical element.

What do we mean by "tactics" here? The only "tactics" I recall in Fallout is finding a good position to stop the enemy from overwhelming yourself. And that is a thing in Gothic too.

And I have to lol at the 'just reflex combat' comment. The only difference between chess and fencing is that one has reflex based combat and the other does not.

Fallout isn't chess and Gothic isn't fencing.

- Fallout: attack the enemy until it dies in turn-based combat.
- Gothic: attack the enemy until it dies in action-based combat.

Combat is a means to an end: kill the enemy. In both games, stats affect your combat prowess.

Yeah the gameplay is completely different and that is the 'only' difference between the games. It just shows the attitude you have, that the gameplay is totally inconsequential to the genre, which is just a position that does not make sense.

Your position is that THE element that defines RPGs is how combat works. At which point I have to question whether you actually like roleplaying games, or whether you simply like games with tactical combat. I'm inclined to think it is the latter, at which point let me be the first to say "you are wrong". Having tactical combat doesn't make an RPG. Not even close.

Having combat based on your character's stats when it comes to things such as accuracy is the only real advantage games like Fallout have over New Vegas when it comes to measuring their "RPGness".

 

[Sigourn]

Going around in an open world and talking to people is hardly a criteria exclusive to RPGness.

And turn-based, tactical combat is? Because strategy games have those too. Whereas I'm pretty sure no other genre is characterized by

- Being able to choose how your character will develop (skills, equipment).
- Being able to choose how you want to play the game based on your character skills.
- Being able to choose factions to join.
- Being able to choose what quests to do and how to undertake them, getting different results in the process.

What's funny is that these all sound like the essence of oleplaying. But nope! I must be wrong.

 

[Darkzone]

Spoiler

One has a career as a death metal singer and the other as mickey mouse.

 

[Lacrymas]

And turn-based, tactical combat is? Because strategy games have those too. Whereas I'm pretty sure no other genre is characterized by

- Being able to choose how your character will develop (skills, equipment). DOTA (MOBAs in general), Dishonored, Etherlords 1-2, HoMM, AoW, etc.
- Being able to choose how you want to play the game based on your character skills. Literally only Fallout 1-2 and AoD are like this, maybe UnderRail and Arcanum. Unless you mean combat style, a lot of action games give you choices on how to play the combat, Saint's Row and Assassin's Creed come to mind. Not that you are allowed to say the combat, because you (and not only you) already established that combat is not important in this discussion.
- Being able to choose factions to join. Most RPGs don't have factions, so this is arbitrary.
- Being able to choose what quests to do and how to undertake them, getting different results in the process. Choices like this exist in other games and genres, Dishonored comes to mind. Apart from the "choosing which quests", Thief and Hitman also allow you to approach a given situation in wildly different ways.

What's funny is that these all sound like the essence of oleplaying. But nope! I must be wrong.

Everything on this list is arbitrary or personal preference, which you transpose onto RPGs. I'm purposefully not giving Deus Ex, System Shock 2 and VtMB as examples because people will say "but those are RPGs!". No, they aren't, but I'll refrain from using them.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Lacrymas

I will repost this from another thread:

The risk with these discussions about cRPG definitions is giving too much importance to the elements of the definiens of your definition at the expenses of actual gameplay elements that are integral to the genre. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that cRPGs are attempts to surpass unnecessary challenges where players’ abilities are represented by stats and skills in a gameplay that involves narrative choices. By that definition T:ToN is a genuine cRPG, but Wizardry is not genuine cRPG. However, and that’s the catch, T:ToN has shallow character building, bad character progression, awful exploration, bad combat system, horrendous itemization and superficial gameplay, whereas Wizardry has engrossing character building, excellent character progression, rewarding exploration and good itemization. So at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter that T:ToN does fit our definition of genuine cRPGs, but Wizardry doesn’t, because the first one fails in everything that we should expect from a cRPG, whereas the last one does so many things well in a way that is consistent with one would expect from a stat/skill informed gameplay that is a much more real cRPG. Another way you can think of it is that pure combat heavy stat games are like heavy combat P&P campaigns designed by a DM that focus on combat. No one would be retarded enough to suggest that your session was not genuine RPG because it was all combat, because the gameplay was stat/skill determined, etc.

This post was directed at people who thinks that the only thing that matters in these discussions is C&C, but something along the same lines can be said about your definition of cRPG. The point is not whether F:NV is a cRPG or not, but whether cRPGs should have this type of gameplay and, what is more important, whether it has enough cRPG elements to justify its inclusion in discussion about cRPGs. Besides, you are being too naive and heavy handed with your conceptual approach. These abstract topics are inherently controversial. So even if there were academic experts on cRPGs they would disagree about their nature.

 

[Sigourn]

Everything on this list is arbitrary or personal preference, which you transpose onto RPGs

And you are doing just that with your opinion regarding RPG combat.

Make no mistake: I do believe people are entitled to different opinions on what an RPG actually is. But I'm not about to ignore you are actually doing that which you accuse me of doing: to you, there's a specific type of combat inherent to RPGs, when you can just as easily make a game that is not an RPG and shares that type of combat too. Unless of course you believe that combat automatically turns a game into an RPG regardless of what the rest of the game looks/plays like, at which point I don't see why bother in trying to change your mind.

 

[Lacrymas]

whether it [F:NV] has enough cRPG elements to justify its inclusion in discussion about cRPGs.

No, it's not enough to justify its inclusion.

Make no mistake: I do believe people are entitled to different opinions on what an RPG actually is. But I'm not about to ignore you are actually doing that which you accuse me of doing: to you, there's a specific type of combat inherent to RPGs, when you can just as easily make a game that is not an RPG and shares that type of combat too. Unless of course you believe that combat automatically turns a game into an RPG regardless of what the rest of the game looks/plays like, at which point I don't see why bother in trying to change your mind.

No, AoD can be beaten without combat, yet it's an RPG, so it's obviously not only about the combat. Try again.

 

[Sigourn]

No, AoD can be beaten without combat, yet it's an RPG, so it's obviously not only about the combat. Try again.

Why should I try again? It's clearly about the combat, because switching to action-based combat suddenly makes it not an RPG according to you. Even if you could talk your entire way through New Vegas (and by "entire", I literally mean being able to talk down/pacify every enemy in the game, as opposed to "pacifists" run-around-from-every-encounter runs) you would still refuse to call it an RPG because of it's action-based combat.

So yeah: to you, combat makes or breaks the RPG.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

No, it's not enough to justify its inclusion.

So we are supposed to ignore the reactivity, stat/skill checks, exploration, the character progression, the resource management, the itemization, only because you think that the combat was not cRPG-ish enough according to your definition? You should exclude VtM:B too. How about heavy combat cRPG classics that don’t have C&C or skill checks? Would throw those out too? Soon enough we will end up with a small list of the cRPGs we can talk about because they are the only games that fit in your definiens. This is a pedantic, reductive and superficial way of dealing with the genre. I can appreciate the combat of Wizardry or the resource management of RoA2, even though they don’t tick all the conceptual boxes of my pet thery of cRPGs. Moreover, it seems that you have a flaw in your reasoning in that you assume that the combat in these games is not cRPGish enough because they are not solely governed by stats, but are affected by players ability. cRPG gameplay in general is mainly governed by players intelligence in the form of tactics, builds, etc., so it seems that one of your definiens is based on circular logic.

 

[Lacrymas]

If New Vegas could be beaten in the way you say, I'd gladly say that there is one way to play it like an RPG, but only if stats allow you do that, instead of everyone being able to.

Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss, it's only flawed if you don't understand it. Action combat is about the player's reflex and twitch skills, not player's ability. Also, yes, in this context, the combat alone is enough to say it's not an RPG. All the other things you say can be in a shooter as well, F:NV proves that.

 

[Sigourn]

If New Vegas could be beaten in the way you say, I'd gladly say that there is one way to play it like an RPG, but only if stats allow you do that, instead of everyone being able to.

See

So we are supposed to ignore the reactivity, stat/skill checks, exploration, the character progression, the resource management, the itemization, only because you think that the combat was not cRPG-ish enough according to your definition?

Since when "roleplaying" means "combat and only combat"? It's ridiculous because, although it is true that certain elements can be found in other games, so can you find racing in GTA V and you wouldn't call it a "racing game", would you? It's a matter of priority, about the experience as a whole. New Vegas is an RPG first and a (lame) shooter second. Gothic is an RPG first and a (really pleasant) action game second. By comparison, Dark Souls is an action game first and RPG second, just as Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is an action-platformer first and RPG second as well.

I do believe Fallout is a better RPG than a hypothetical 1st person Fallout with action combat (influenced by stats). But by no means would the latter cease to be an RPG.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Action combat is about the player's reflex and twitch skills, not player's ability.

Player's reflex is an ability. Duh.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Fallout has party members and has very significant character building RPG system. Gothic has no mechanics of any note, the only thing that really affects gameplay is getting better armor. There is absolutely no tactics in gothic combat, in fallout positioning of the player does matter at least some so there is some tactical element.

Have you even played Gothic? First, Gothic also has party members like my main man Diego. Second, leveling up your skills affects gameplay more than getting better equipment--it completely changes how you wield your weapons, as well as substantially boosting your damage output. Before training, you hold your one-handed sword with two hands and your swings are slow and sloppy; as you put more points into the one-handed skill, your attacks become smoother and faster; you can perform longer and longer combos, and your critical chance increases by 1% with each learning point. Try to use a bow without any training and it wobbles all over the place. The game is designed around kiting, which is a degenerate tactic, but a tactic nonetheless and one that's commonly found in many "real" RPGs.

"Action RPG" says absolutely nothing to me apart from how the movement and combat is handled, it's an even more meaningless and nonsensical verbiage.

And yet you had absolutely no trouble understanding what this term meant until quite recently. Either you've had some head trauma or you're being willfully obtuse. Probably the latter because you don't seem to have a problem recognizing action RPGs. Look:

If New Vegas, Mass Effect, Morrowind, Gothic, Fallout 3, VtMB and whatever else are all "action RPGs", where is this headed?

Seems to be communicating its meaning quite well. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Your apparent confusion stems from reading "role playing" as meaning "menu based combat." Action RPG would indeed be oxymoronic if that was all role playing meant (I know your definition also includes stats/progression--don't get pedantic on me). But there are pen and paper RPG systems with little combat, or even no combat whatsoever. Those are still role playing games. You're trying to take a very common property of CRPGs, a particular style of combat, and shoehorn it into being the essence of the genre.

I suspect that your newfound problem with the action RPG designation has less to do with its internal logic and more to do with the recent proliferation of RPG elements across every genre under the sun. Fair enough, but no one seems to have a problem recognizing why, say, Gothic or New Vegas are action RPGs and Destiny is a shooter with some borrowed RPG elements.

If New Vegas could be beaten in the way you say, I'd gladly say that there is one way to play it like an RPG, but only if stats allow you do that, instead of everyone being able to.

Yes, New Vegas can be beaten without killing anything, and of course it's totally dependent on your SPECIAL stats and your skills.

edit: did you sample Fallout 3 and refuse to touch another gamebryo garbage fire? There's actually a ton of skill and SPECIAL based reactivity in New Vegas. It's much more about talking and shooting than walking and shooting.

 

[Lacrymas]

Sigourn, don't be naive, F:NV is built around walking and shooting, everything else is secondary.
Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss, it's one type of ability, there are others, but you weren't talking about that.
Kyl Von Kull, it can only be beaten like that if you avoid encounters and have a specific route in mind, it's obviously not designed around doing that. Action RPG is an oxymoron because of the combat, yes, and RPGs include combat, but as I've stated in my other posts, it's not only about the combat. If a game has combat, it has to be menu/Ui-driven to be an RPG. Also, "Action RPG" doesn't tell me anything because by listing all these different games, I don't know what to expect. Is it like Mass Effect or like Morrowind? Or like Gothic? 3 completely different games, yet all are "action RPGs".