1eyedking The defining core of RPGs

[Sigourn]

PES and FIFA games are RPGs. That this verifiable fact is disputed shows what's wrong with people trying to define "RPG".

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Of course they are not. And its clear why when the correct defining feature is used as a measuring tool.

That specific butthurt over games that any individual simply likes is one of the bigger reasons why the myth about impossibility of definition of RPGs is still spread around.

Note to all those who mentioned "character stats" - AGAIN - What im saying does not refute that at all. It simply explains exactly why and how that has to work to achieve unique RPG type of gameplay.

 

[King Crispy]

A piece of ham that you spit back out onto your plate from your sandwich because it has too much fat and/or gristle in it is NOT an RPG.

Only about 57,713,712,000,000,000,000,000,000 more to go.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

If you have nothing remotely relevant to add kindly restrain from posting dumb obvious shit nobody needs to see proclaimed Crispen.

 

[c2007]

If you have nothing remotely relevant to add kindly restrain from posting dumb obvious shit nobody needs to see proclaimed Crispen.

Finally.

You added nothing remotely relevant to the forum by beating this horse another time.

Kindly restrain from posting dumb obvious shit, faggot.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Well shitface, for that to be true you would need to actually explain it, instead of just exposing yourself as a butthurt dumbfuck who can only spew incoherent garbage in desperate attempt to make yourself feel better.

Which will blow up in your face.

thats why you are a shitface, see?

 

[King Crispy]

restrain from posting

It's either 'refrain from posting' or 'restrain yourself from posting', you illiterate buffoon.

However, I shan't post off-topic here again.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

There should have been "yourself" there, but i guess Alzheimer hid it.

Appreciated.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

"The fundamental core feature that defines and exemplifies an RPG from other genres are limits imposed onto the game content and options within that content by various character abilities that the player cannot directly override with his own skills, but can and must enhance, evolve and develop strategically to unlock the game content and different options within it. In other words, to be able to play it."

Wouldn't this sorta eliminate most classical cRPGs? Since they were all party based, and presumably, everyone balanced their party and had different members for different roles, wouldn't the total sum of the party have any skill in the game, and thus make the whole gating irrelevant, and thereby give the player, in practical terms, access to the entirety of the game? I mean maybe your party would be missing some esoteric skill or two, but everyone would have a fighter, wizard, cleric, thief, hunter, etc. Or if you claim that these games DID have gating, what's the point of it then, it in practical terms it was ignored?

The other thing is that character based skills on their own are generally boring. They just come down to a dice roll or some sort of check. It is player input and player skill that make things interesting. So given that, would you say that RPGs are doomed to have inferior gameplay compared to other genres?

 

[Sigourn]

Of course they are not.

Are you saying FIFA and PES aren't RPGs? Because I see that, in the Become a Legend/Career Mode:

1. You create your own character.
2. You choose stats.
3. You have an influence in stat growth.
4. Said stats influence how your character plays.

This is RPG gameplay. An RPG is not about combat, it's not about a fictional setting, it's not about a story. It's plain and simply about roleplaying a character that is defined by stats you have an influence on, whether it be their creation/definition or their specific growth, which impact on how said character plays.

In other words, you can have a game where you can create a character and select a multitude of stats... but ultimately if they influence absolutely nothing, then it's not an RPG.

I admit ignorance on whether all RPGs on the Top 70 RPGs list fit this criteria of mine. But the most controversial examples, at the very least, do: all the action RPGs listed there have either character creation, and/or the stats most definitely influence how said characters play.

The importance does not lie in whether the player can effectively render the character difference moot (i.e. skilled Dark Souls player vs unskilled Dark Souls player). The importance lies in that the characters are different, and even the most skilled Dark Souls player will acknowledge that a strong character is, well, stronger.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

"The fundamental core feature that defines and exemplifies an RPG from other genres are limits imposed onto the game content and options within that content by various character abilities that the player cannot directly override with his own skills, but can and must enhance, evolve and develop strategically to unlock the game content and different options within it. In other words, to be able to play it."

Wouldn't this sorta eliminate most classical cRPGs? Since they were all party based, and presumably, everyone balanced their party and had different members for different roles, wouldn't the total sum of the party have any skill in the game, and thus make the whole gating irrelevant, and thereby give the player, in practical terms, access to the entirety of the game? I mean maybe your party would be missing some esoteric skill or two, but everyone would have a fighter, wizard, cleric, thief, hunter, etc. Or if you claim that these games DID have gating, what's the point of it then, it in practical terms it was ignored?

There is that effect of the party based games of course, and there is an issue of how much content that can be separated by character abilities any game provides. Which is often restricted due to purely economic reasons.
We all know countless examples of such cases - yet the gameplay tends to play out differently between a party and another party, due to variations in composition and chosen stats for each character, decisions of solving quests in this or that way (where the game allows it) and any equipment that is found, plus all the other minute differences in content and game systems any game provides.

You still create characters and decide what their abilities will be - so you have to play using those abilities and evolve them in specific ways.
And you cant solve a single quest in five or six different ways at the same time. Good games provide more options in that sense, lousier less. While the games whose content is constrained only to combat have less such options by default.

Yet still, fundamentally - the content of the game and options within it are limited through character abilities - that you have to evolve and enhance to progress and succeed in any specific task or action.
Regardless if its a single character or a party.

The other thing is that character based skills on their own are generally boring. They just come down to a dice roll or some sort of check. It is player input and player skill that make things interesting. So given that, would you say that RPGs are doomed to have inferior gameplay compared to other genres?

My definition specifically take this into account because of course its not just about character skills alone.
Its is about the fundamental establishing of limits on gameplay through character abilities, stats and other such features - that the player must evolve and enhance to play.
This specific interplay of player and character is what creates the recognizable RPG gameplay. You are playing with and through your character, where his or her abilities deal with immediate ingame content, while you as a player have a overview, strategic and meta control and deal with those kinds of decisions and choices - that are limited by character abilities.

Thats what creates the interesting gameplay specific for RPGs.
And what separates them from the opposite extreme of CYOA games, or books.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Are you saying FIFA and PES aren't RPGs? Because I see that, in the Become a Legend/Career Mode:

1. You create your own character.
2. You choose stats.
3. You have an influence in stat growth.
4. Said stats influence how your character plays.

They are not RPGs because the majority of gameplay is directly under the players skills influence and control.
They may have such elements, which we can find in many other games and in RPGs...

And thats exactly why such features and elements alone are not enough to make a game into a RPG.
I didnt just blurt this out because it fell on my head. I thought about it and compared it to all different types of games and genres there is. It checks out.

The importance does not lie in whether the player can effectively render the character difference moot (i.e. skilled Dark Souls player vs unskilled Dark Souls player).

Action RPG.

 

[Sigourn]

They are not RPGs because the majority of gameplay is directly under the players skills influence and control.

This is what I mean by "we can't agree on what makes an RPG because people think action = not an RPG". People directly translate a tabletop game into a computer and expect it to be a 1:1 recreation, else it's not an RPG. But the truth is said computer games are beyond tabletop rules. What is needed is that stats exist, because there has to be some metric (stats, skills, feats, whatever) that stops the player from being everyone and no one at once. Said metrics are completely gone in a game like Doom. In a game like Quake. Deus Ex without stats would no longer be an RPG. What makes Deus Ex an RPG is not that there are multiple solutions to quests: what makes it an RPG is that your stats influence the gameplay; as a consequence, some solutions won't be available to all builds. This doesn't mean that an RPG with linear quests is not an RPG. At best, it is of no consequence; at worst, it is a terribly designed RPG but an RPG nonetheless (e.g. there are dedicated Doctor and Science skills but these never play a part in quests where they most definitely should play a part).

This is why I also believe "choice and consequence" is a fairly nebulous expression: it can mean making choices in quests or it can mean making a choice, any choice, and having consequences for making that choice. As I explained, the former is meaningless to the definition of an RPG. And the latter is already included in games like Wizardry (you choose a certain party and have to deal with the consequences of that party, its strengths and weaknesses).

 

[Mr. Hiver]

This is what I mean by "we can't agree on what makes an RPG because people think action = not an RPG".

Are we talking about what some imaginary "people" - think, or what i say?

Ive provided you with enough examples of various action heavy games that fall into the RPG genre and a clear distinction of why and how.

Deus Ex without stats would no longer be an RPG. What makes Deus Ex an RPG is not that there are multiple solutions to quests: what makes it an RPG is that your stats influence the gameplay; as a consequence, some solutions won't be available to all builds.

Exactly?

So its not just stats that define the genre but their specific effect on the game content. Its the way they are specifically used that defines RPG games as such.

 

[Sigourn]

Exactly?

So its not just stats that define the genre but their specific effect on the game content. Its the way they are specifically used that defines RPG games as such.

How can you argue that PES's Become a Legend is not an RPG, then? Stats directly influence how the character plays. The same thing can be said about Deus Ex. Just because a game has more features than another doesn't inherently make it "an RPG", i.e. just because Fallout has quests with choices and consequences doesn't mean it is an RPG and Wizardry isn't. Both of them, like PES, share the same trait that makes them RPGs: stats that directly influence of characters play.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

I dunno man... i said specifically why and how several times. You simply didnt read it, or just cannot see a part of the answer because you have a blind spot in your brain so you just dont see it.
Thats the only thing i can conclude on page 5 of me repeating the same fucking thing over and over.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch like that.

ill try simplifying it, once more...

Its not just that there are character stats, mkay? its not just that there are character stats that influence the gameplay... MKAY?

ITS THE CHARACTER ABILITIES THAT LIMIT THE GAME CONTENT AND OPTIONS WITHIN IT - That your player skills cannot override.

In case of PES and Fifa, it is your player skills that directly influence and control the majority of actual gameplay.
And you can win even if you play with teams that arent the best or are lousy. The RPG elements there are just that, elements added to those different types of games and that specific genre, just like they are added and used by many other types of games and genres.

-
DeusX games are Action RPGs too. btw.

Witcher games - also Action RPGs.

Not because they have "actions!" but because the player skill influences majority of game content and can override character abilities limits on it. - to some extent but not completely.

 

[Sigourn]

ITS THE CHARACTER ABILITIES THAT LIMIT THE GAME CONTENT AND OPTIONS WITHIN IT

So Akalabeth isn't an RPG?

 

[anvi]

It's video games you turbo virgin. It's not that serious. Go have sex with a real life woman irl (in real life) and I promise you will never care about any of this ever again.

I too had sax on a gril with bobs. I am no longer a gamer, ppl carry me around on shoulders. Town made statue of me. Now your human passtimes cannot entertain me, nor movies or anything. I lay back depressed, awaiting more vagenes and bobses.