sawyer wants rpg to evolve

[Kyl Von Kull]

So file Wiz 1 under similar shit.

No, I won't. Dungeon Crawlers are not JRPGs.

Interactive storytelling doesn’t necessarily mean a branching narrative, but it does mean having more choices than your character build and which spell to cast in combat. I don’t think this is a hard concept to understand. There’s a huge qualitative difference between something like, say, Fallout and something like Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord. Why not say they’re different genres?

Look, is there more to an RPG than exploration, character building, and turn based combat? I would say yes, and that excludes early Wizardry.

So, there is more, whatever that more is, to RPGs than those, which excludes Wizardry. But, if those things are missing, it can still be an RPG... because of that "more" thing?

Cool story, bro.

Also, choices in character building and which spells to cast in combat, in an actual RPG, are more complex and interesting and more of them than choosing, arbitrarily, a dialogue option in Alpha Protolol (or whatever the fuck is considered an RPG these days) and pretending you "roleplayed" a mysterious tough guy with a heart of gold.

And no, I won't say Wizardry is a different genre just because... lol you think it doesn't have that "more" herp derp.

How about YOU say that whatever games you want and like are not RPGs and give them a special name and keep them just for you?

It's not me getting on your turf, it's you getting on mine, so fuck off.

Call them Best Games Ever for all I care, but don't call them RPGs and especially not evolved RPGs, pretending that you evolved anything, by actually removing features. Fucking lol.

Touchy touchy. The example I gave was Fallout vs Wiz 1 so let’s stick with that. What is this magical “more” that exists in Fallout but not Wizardry? Do I really need to elaborate?

Hmm... You can spend half the game in Fallout talking to people, in early Wizardry there are no people to talk to. Fallout, by virtue of having dialogue, also lets you sign up for all sorts of quests, which you can then choose to fulfill or not fulfill, usually in multiple different ways. Sometimes those quests conflict with other quests! Wizardry has none of this, except find the macguffin. Fallout gives you, what, a dozen ways to interact with your environment? Wizardry has traps. Fallout has reactivity coming out of every orifice, Wizardry does not. Fallout is choice after choice after choice—that’s what we mean by interactive storytelling. That’s what we mean by depth. This is a huge part of pen and paper role playing and in the current era Josh thinks it’s the core element of a CRPG. I’m not not sure I agree 100% but the argument deserves serious consideration.

Now, a lot of this stuff was impossible to do on a computer in 1980 and in many ways this is an incredibly unfair comparison. But I think Josh has a good point. In 1980, a game with character creation, leveling, combat and exploration had everything you needed to make an RPG. By 1997 we had higher standards! It was the age of incline, and there was so much incline that it created a qualitatively different genre (obviously the incline stopped, but those first twenty years totally changed the landscape).

Today if you made an RPG without quests (plural!), without dialogue, without C&C, without reactivity, and without any environmental interactivity beyond traps, many of us would rightly say that’s not an RPG. So when Josh says Wiz 1 was an RPG in 1980 but would not be an RPG if made today, he’s making a legitimate argument with real underpinnings even if you disagree with it.

Hell, Interplay made Fallout Tactics, which had the same mechanics as Fallout and tons of combat with some exploration; it was a post apocalyptic dungeon crawler. Was Fallout Tactics an RPG? I’d say borderline at best.

Stop being so obtuse. This should have been self evident and self explanatory.

 

[Cael]

Hell, Interplay made Fallout Tactics, which had the same mechanics as Fallout and tons of combat with some exploration; it was a post apocalyptic dungeon crawler. Was Fallout Tactics an RPG? I’d say borderline at best.

Even though I liked the game, I wouldn't consider Fallout Tactics a dungeon crawler or a RPG. It is a squad tactics game like XCom or Incubation (probably closer to the latter due to no base building).

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Hell, Interplay made Fallout Tactics, which had the same mechanics as Fallout and tons of combat with some exploration; it was a post apocalyptic dungeon crawler. Was Fallout Tactics an RPG? I’d say borderline at best.

Even though I liked the game, I wouldn't consider Fallout Tactics a dungeon crawler or a RPG. It is a squad tactics game like XCom or Incubation (probably closer to the latter due to no base building).

Sure. Just trying to make the point that when you remove most of that stuff from Fallout, it’s no longer an RPG. So what does that say about a game that never had any of that stuff to begin with?

 

[Swampy_Merkin]

This is literally the stupidest debate I've ever had the misfortune to wander into. 2nd only to the other dozen "wut r rpg" debates I've read here....if you "level up" in some way that increases your fucking POWER and you play a ROLE....then it's an rpg.

Please stahp now.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

What’s wrong with making interactive storytelling the foundation of the genre? Reasonable people can differ on what can change the nature of a game, but if you had to pick one thing that defines an RPG, interactive storytelling would be a legitimate answer.

RPGs are defined by a combination of many game mechanics, starting with their origins in miniatures war-gaming from which RPGs derived their combat mechanics as well as, from squad-based games, the idea of a player controlling a single character with equipment and inventory. To these existing game mechanics, Arneson & Gygax added character progression & customization so that the player-characters would gradually advance over the course of a campaign, and also added several factors relating to exploration, which is a key component of RPGs alongside the combat-related and character-related aspects.

This isn't to say that a game must include every major aspect found in D&D in order to be considered an RPG, but we can judge a game's RPGness by how near or far away it is from the ideal, considered as a combination of important game mechanics. It would be absurd enough if you were picking a single major game mechanic (e.g. turn-based combat) found in RPGs and deciding to define RPGs by this one component while disregarding everything else. However, you're defining RPGs by a single factor that is inessential and then asking the rest of us to agree with you that Interactive Fiction is the purest form of RPGs, when the reality is that IF has bugger all to do with RPGs.

 

[Swampy_Merkin]

A role-playing game is one in which you play a role.....your autistic ass may need more or less help getting into that role, but if a role is provided (and there's a game to be played) then it's a fucking role-playing game. It might not be the type of role-playing game you would prefer....nonetheless...*throws up hands and walks away....*

 

[Swampy_Merkin]

I just played Firewatch. Firewatch is a fucking role-playing game.

 

[Swampy_Merkin]

I just rolled 2 d-10 and got 03....that means I lose everything right now.

 

[Black Angel]

Stalker is a slow-burning shooter with horror elements. It does have some c&c and reactivity, but its not nearly as open as old school crpgs. Can I kill Sidorovich? No.

all the nu-Beth games, Bioware, Witchers, etc. aren't RPGs.

Never said they were

Nice selective quoting. To Bg2 I'll add Arcanum (Nasrudin)

You can kill Nasrudin

 

[Reinhardt]

There’s a reason blobber stuff tends to wind up in the JRPG subforum here.

Yes. After open doors day in bethestard and bioware asylums there is no place for good games in crpg subforum.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

What’s wrong with making interactive storytelling the foundation of the genre? Reasonable people can differ on what can change the nature of a game, but if you had to pick one thing that defines an RPG, interactive storytelling would be a legitimate answer.

RPGs are defined by a combination of many game mechanics, starting with their origins in miniatures war-gaming from which RPGs derived their combat mechanics as well as, from squad-based games, the idea of a player controlling a single character with equipment and inventory. To these existing game mechanics, Arneson & Gygax added character progression & customization so that the player-characters would gradually advance over the course of a campaign, and also added several factors relating to exploration, which is a key component of RPGs alongside the combat-related and character-related aspects.

This isn't to say that a game must include every major aspect found in D&D in order to be considered an RPG, but we can judge a game's RPGness by how near or far away it is from the ideal, considered as a combination of important game mechanics. It would be absurd enough if you were picking a single major game mechanic (e.g. turn-based combat) found in RPGs and deciding to define RPGs by this one component while disregarding everything else. However, you're defining RPGs by a single factor that is inessential and then asking the rest of us to agree with you that Interactive Fiction is the purest form of RPGs, when the reality is that IF has bugger all to do with RPGs.

This is Josh Sawyer’s argument. I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not 100% on board with it, but I think it would be a mistake to dismiss it out of hand.

With pen and paper, you omit that you’re playing with other people. That may seem too self-evident to be worth mentioning, but all of the things I’m talking about are attempts to replicate that part of the experience. Also, lots of p&p systems have great non combat mechanics and can be played with little to no fighting, like Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, Burning Wheel and White Wolf’s various versions of Vampire: The Masquerade.

And since when does interactive fiction have nothing to do with RPGs? There were plenty of text based IF RPGs back in the day.

My reading of Josh’s comment is that an RPG is an interactive narrative (mimicking the p&p experience of a DM and other players) + actual gameplay, which in his view can be turn based or RTwP or action based or something else altogether. I’m not sure that would be my personal definition, but it’s worthy of consideration.

 

[Master]

Wizardry not an RPG anymore?

Seriously?

 

[Kasparov]

Hello, good sirs! Have you heard of Disco Elysium, our good Lord and Savior?

 

[One-and-a-half-Ivan]

And Sawyer wins this thread again.

 

[Pablosdog]

The only rpgs that exist are 40 hour cinematic experiences where you fuck blue women

 

[FeelTheRads]

he’s making a legitimate argument with real underpinnings even if you disagree with it.

Dude, you're making up stuff.

His argument is that most people (as in the lowest common denominator) don't think it's an RPG, therefore it's not an RPG anymore. That's the essence of it.

If people thought you need romanced for a game to be RPG would you also think that deserves "serious consideration".

 

[Iskramor]

"Josh Sawyer and Tim Cain are in it for the fame and fortune" is what you're saying here, but that makes no sense given what they've made in the past.

Are you trying to insult my intelligence with this low energy trolling, Roguey? How about this: a long time ago, some kids entered in the game industry because they were idealists and didn't know any better. As time passes they outgrown their idealism and got fed up by their teenager passion. The problem is that by now they have no better job prospects so they got stucked in this toxic and risky environment. Their solution is to take every single penny from their hardcore and deluded fanbase in order to appeal to an audience from other genre in order to make some real money and perhaps have some well deserved trip to Hawaii and other little pleasures in life, instead of slaving like a zombie in front of a PC to release another teenager ego-pandering fiction simulator.

Keep using out of contex sentences by sawyer to further you agenda.

 

[Iskramor]

ITT we have people basically arguing that Telltale games are rpgs.

They could be if they actually provided reactivity instead of railroading you into the same result.

Doesn't matter had C&C

 

[Fowyr]

my nigga have you heard about Disco Elysium??????

It's not a proper RPG without combat.

Now let's have a discussion about whether overworld ship combat is an evolution of the genre.

I opened this thread at last page, and this is fist stuff I seen. Was something interesting in previous 6 pages?

Shillitron a-shilling for the love of it.

STALKER reactivity is not limited to how you kill enemies. There are groups of people who react differently to you depending on how you do, talk or approach missions in the game. In fact, it has more reactivity than Baldurs Gate, which only reactivity is on pointless romance. Which one is the RPG again?

Get out of here, stalker. No stats - not RPG.

[*]artifact system for stats

They are no more real stats than Strife's "stats".

From the very beginning you had some pen and paper people bitching that Wizardry wasn’t a real role playing game precisely because it lacked interactive storytelling.

Fixed. They were faggots, BTW. My parties never complained about all these orcs and trash mobs that I sent to die on their swords.

 

[laclongquan]

Hell, Interplay made Fallout Tactics, which had the same mechanics as Fallout and tons of combat with some exploration; it was a post apocalyptic dungeon crawler. Was Fallout Tactics an RPG? I’d say borderline at best.

Even though I liked the game, I wouldn't consider Fallout Tactics a dungeon crawler or a RPG. It is a squad tactics game like XCom or Incubation (probably closer to the latter due to no base building).

Fallout Tactics is an extremely lite RPG in the same way Jagged Alliance 2 is a RPG

1. It has a main story where the game can end. Hell, it has three kind of endings depend on your character's game stat.
2. Its character has stats and skills. The controllable chars has stats and skills outside of player's skills.
3. It has a number of quests with consequences to the game (extra recruits, extra merchants...). The number is small but is nonzero.

What else do you think it need to be a rpg? :defineRPG:

 

[Cael]

Hell, Interplay made Fallout Tactics, which had the same mechanics as Fallout and tons of combat with some exploration; it was a post apocalyptic dungeon crawler. Was Fallout Tactics an RPG? I’d say borderline at best.

Even though I liked the game, I wouldn't consider Fallout Tactics a dungeon crawler or a RPG. It is a squad tactics game like XCom or Incubation (probably closer to the latter due to no base building).

Fallout Tactics is an extremely lite RPG in the same way Jagged Alliance 2 is a RPG

1. It has a main story where the game can end. Hell, it has three kind of endings depend on your character's game stat.
2. Its character has stats and skills. The controllable chars has stats and skills outside of player's skills.
3. It has a number of quests with consequences to the game (extra recruits, extra merchants...). The number is small but is nonzero.

What else do you think it need to be a rpg? :defineRPG:

I would define it as a tactical squad game because it has more tactical squad than RPG. It is as simple as that. I have zero interest in splitting hairs as to which game goes where. FOT is a squad tactic game because that is what you do. The rest of the things are nice, but not the main focus of the game.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Tag all these filthy progressive storyfag scum so that we can identify them properly and from a safe distance. Enough is enough. Tag them all, I say. If they keep at it, retardo them.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

rpg =/= crpg
c'mon people

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

ITT we have people basically arguing that Telltale games are rpgs.

ITT we have people basically arguing that FPS are rpgs.