Vault Dweller's Theoretical Introduction to the cRPG genre, with Examples Aplenty

[Vault Dweller]

He understands the appeal of dungeon crawls about as well as Bethesda understands meaningfully choice. Masturbation should be a private thing.

I love dungeon crawlers. I think you mistook my quick comment for criticism.

I favour definitions that are written in a less exclusive manner.

For example, remove the "a game designed by people who think that dungeons are the most awesome aspect in any RPG and the rest is meaningless garbage" from the dungeon crawler definition and just leave "These games offer you endless chains of dungeons to explore and loot."

Should I purge the article from every joke to make sure that nobody will actually think that dungeon crawlers must only be designed by dungeon nuts?

Then you have a category that can easily be mixed with Classic (or whatever). I don't see why you can't have "a game built around meaningful choices, dialogues, and role-playing " that also has a huge number of dungeons to explore and loot, yet they are presented here like it's impossible to have a pleasing lick of both.

Think of it as development focus. Of course, "classic or whatever" rpgs have dungeon and things to kill. Of course, dungeon crawlers have choices and role-playing. However, ToEE was not designed to be a game of Fallout or Arcanum caliber, and Arcanum wasn't designed with the action in mind.

Also, though I am aware almost all examples do, adventure games do not have to "progress from point A to point B to point C in a very specific, set in stone way". Fahrenheit is an example of an attempt to do otherwise (are there any others?).

Every rule has exceptions, but overall the adventure genre is still about progressing from A to B in a set manner. Not that it's a bad thing as it allows to bring different things to the table.

For example, this piece defines them it as "[a] game revolving around killing stuff". I've seen occasional arguments that match VD's definition - I remember DU arguing at one time that a TB old-school RPG was an "action RPG" purely due to its combat quota.

While RPGs were always combat heavy, action RPGs are literally all about action. What's Diablo 2 (or Darkstone or Sacred or Nox) if not an endless arena with loot and character systems? Even Stonekeep offered more than that.

Only 12 categories? WEAK

 

[Crichton]

While RPGs were always combat heavy, action RPGs are literally all about action. What's Diablo 2 (or Darkstone or Sacred or Nox) if not an endless arena with loot and character systems? Even Stonekeep offered more than that.

Skinner box mechanisms != "Action"

No one would call Diablo or WoW an "action game" because they have no action (the only thing that involves any skill is fighting with the interface). So why call them "action rpgs"?

Instead, why don't we use "action rpg" for roleplaying games that actually make some use of the player's reflexes just like other action games (shooters, platformers, beat-em-ups, racing games et al) such as Vampire: Bloodlines, the Gothic series, Oblivion, The Witcher and the like.

 

[MF]

Adventure games can be quite non-linear, VD. Try A Tale Of Two Kingdoms. It progresses through chapters, and each chapter is non-linear. You can even have an ending that stops two chapters before the other endings. [/url]

 

[Vault Dweller]

Thanks. I'll check it out.

Edit: Looks pretty sweet.
"...in the classic style of the famous Sierra and LucasArts graphical adventure games." - music to my ears.

 

[obediah]

'Action' RPG is probably the most contentious adjective to put in front of 'CRPG' (other than good, best, ...)

For me it means clicky-clicky combat, whether it be FP or TP - Diable, Mass Effect, etc.. For me 'Action-RPG'e says absolutely nothing about the C&C, stats, story, etc... And there is no technical reason an action-rpg couldn't provide C&C to put Fallout to shame.

For others it means lots and lots of combat. Calling the Gold Box games 'Action-RPGs' rings false, because there is no action. It's all tactics.

And for others, it's just a rubbish bin for any game that looks dumb-down to them.

 

[shihonage]

I see a couple of stabs at Oblivion/F3 in that article, and, well, I love it.

 

[Shagnak]

Think of it as development focus.

I'm just suggesting that, irrespective of your examples, the features you mention could be given equal weight* in a theoretical RPG, and more "mixable" definitions would support that. When "dungeon and things to kill" and "choices and role-playing" have equal sway, where are you going to put it?
(*i.e. the development focus could be more "diffuse" - oymorons FTW )

While RPGs were always combat heavy, action RPGs are literally all about action. What's Diablo 2 (or Darkstone or Sacred or Nox) if not an endless arena with loot and character systems? Even Stonekeep offered more than that.

Well, my point was that for some people "action" is also referring to "real-time". If many people were to list action RPGs, the list would entirely be of combat-centric real-time RPGS, much like your list. I think most of the press thinks like this (not that that adds any value).

For them, turn based games are not full of "action".
If Nox had tactical TB battles I doubt those people would be calling it an "action" RPG.

And then there are some who put the emphasis entirely on "real-time" aspect, as Chriction here is suggesting.
Oops, it appears I am just repeating myself, so I'll shut up rather than going in circles.

Anyway, the "real-time" part of "action" doesn't feature at all in your personal defintion?


Edit:

Adventure games can be quite non-linear, VD. Try A Tale Of Two Kingdoms. It progresses through chapters, and each chapter is non-linear. You can even have an ending that stops two chapters before the other endings.

Cool. I should really start a thread in the spanky new Adventure forum, because I've wondered about how many exist.

 

[Elwro]

What I thought was sad was that this was spotted through RPG Watch.

Yeah, I feel ashamed myself. Unfortunately, I no longer have time to properly keep an eye on what should be kept an eye on cRPG-wise; I'm popping up irregularly and that's it.

[offtopic] Research comes first for me now; currently the issue is if H(BCK) is finitely axiomatisable. [/offtopic]

 

[Hazelnut]

[offtopic] Research comes first for me now; currently the issue is if H(BCK) is finitely axiomatisable. [/offtopic]

Ask Bryce - doesn't he know everything?

P.S. Your work for the site is very appreciated, I doubt anyone wants you to do more that you feel you can. No shame dude.

 

[Amasius]

Another failed attempt to define once and for for all what makes a RPG but other than that it's an excellent if highly subjective piece that proves again VDs outstanding taste. (Outstanding because it's very similar to my own... :wink To bad that this isn't Codex content...

 

[almondblight]

The reason people know what to expect from an FPS is that it tells what it's going to be like - the perspective (FP) and the combat style (S). It's like turn-based isometric.

RPG on the other hand is a meaningless phrase like "Action" or "Adventure" game. It's a piss poor description of the game (you play a role - what the hell does that mean? player skill in terms of twitch combat isn't playing a role but in terms of mental gymnastics is fine? why? mini-games for lockpicking is stupid but combat is fine?). To me the only thing RPG means is stats.

 

[sqeecoo]

That's not badly said almond. Stats are really the only thing all rpgs have, the other stuff varies. I think trying to "discover" the essence of the word RPG is futile, but some clarification is always useful in the eternal struggle against the great Dumbing Down of games.
It's good to point out that RPGs are not *just* about stats and combat. However, any definition will be lacking.

Really, the point of definitions is not to give the "essential" meaning of words (that's impossible, because all definitions must ultimately make use of undefined concepts), but rather clarify stuff.

 

[Kraszu]

Some choices don't require char skills to limit you, like choosing guild in Gothic if there were no char skills still you will gain something, and loose something by joining one of them

 

[RK47]

wish devs would take note and categorize themselves better than simply labelling it as RPG and calling it 'hardcore'.

Reviewers are guilty of this as well. They seem to call every new thing 'amazing' without seeing below the surface. What? Is there a pure leet graphix rpg genre out there that sacrifice everything for eye candy?

 

[Xi]

Definitely brings some clarity to the debate, I like it.

 

[1eyedking]

First-Person Shooters aren't as shallow as you might think. To me, there's a world of difference between Duke Nukem 3D and DOOM, and an even bigger one between Quake and Counter-Strike (quite possibly the best FPS out there).

Japanese RPGs – endless and repetitive combat interrupted by cutscenes featuring teenage characters with spiky hair and angsty attitude. Sometimes the cutscenes form interesting settings and great stories. Combat is often turn-based, so it’s quite possible to find a real gem there.

They're actually RtwP.

 

[Shagnak]

Japanese RPGs – endless and repetitive combat interrupted by cutscenes featuring teenage characters with spiky hair and angsty attitude. Sometimes the cutscenes form interesting settings and great stories. Combat is often turn-based, so it’s quite possible to find a real gem there.

They're actually RtwP.

No. Whilst there are plenty of JRPGs that have some variety of RT, there are also plenty of examples that are "proper" turn based.
Enough to qualify "often", so I can only assume you are objecting out of your arse.

 

[RK47]

I think CS is the most popular. I'm sure all this best argument came out just because it has the 'first time effect' otherwise CS is pretty much average shooter.

 

[1eyedking]

Whilst there are plenty of JRPGs that have some variety of RT, there are also plenty of examples that are "proper" turn based.
Enough to qualify "often", so I can only assume you are objecting out of your arse.

Whoa, ease down man. The Final Fantasy series at least is.

I think CS is the most popular. I'm sure all this best argument came out just because it has the 'first time effect' otherwise CS is pretty much average shooter.

Now you're kidding, have you even played it? Analyzed it's gameplay? It's a game filled with brilliant design; it single-handedly revolutionized the genre.

 

[Joe Krow]

So if I'm playing some choice and consequence masterpiece that takes place in a dungeon but uses the combat from Diablo am I still playing an rpg? Is it hardcore, dungeon crawl, or action? Could I still call it hardcore if it didn't have the choice and consequences? In the end is that all it takes around here?

The inclusion of choice and consequences into an rpg doesn't raise the bar so much as shifting it... it's a different form, call it open narrative. That alone does not make it better then games with linear narratives or none at all. Games that highlight other mechanics existed before c&c and they kept right on making them after. There is no reason, aside from personal preference, to suggest that c&c should now be some kind of gold standard. You can get just as much depth from complex character/party design, an engaging combat system, or an intricate game world.

You would think a site that claims to be some great repository of rpg wisdom would appreciate the full range of the genre.

 

[Shagnak]

Whoa, ease down man.

Sorry man, you got me hot under the collar - JRPGs are one of my unabiding passions.
Okay, I kid.

But one thing JRPGs are less guilty of than their western brethren in the past 10 years is the abandoning of turn based systems. If only they'd abandon their reliance on interminable cut scenes.

The Final Fantasy series at least is.

Is what?
The latest is RTwP, and that was considered a major departure.
FFX was "proper" turn based. And the other couple I've had a go at seemed to be turn-based with a time limit. I think the older ones were trad turn based.

 

[1eyedking]

The latest is RTwP, and that was considered a major departure.
FFX was "proper" turn based. And the other couple I've had a go at seemed to be turn-based with a time limit. I think the older ones were trad turn based.

I recently picked up FF6 & FF7 and it had some funky bars filling up. Whenever one of them filled up, I got to choose an action, but I had to choose quickly or otherwise the enemy would get its turn again. Only if I accessed an action menu the game would 'Wait' for my decision.

Now, if that isn't RTwP, I don't know what is.

 

[RK47]

Real Time - Phased- Menu Combat System?

 

[Shagnak]

Heh, that might be what I was referring to as "turn based with a time limit", an oversimplification as admittedly that has a real time element to it (bars filling up yadda yadda before you get your turn).

But as pointed out not every game in the series is like that.
The series covers the full gamut from pure TB to weird-arse hybrid, to normal RTwP.

I honestly don't know why they moved to RTwP when so many people seemed to really like the TB stuff in FFX.

 

[1eyedking]

Heh, that might be what I was referring to as "turn based with a time limit", an oversimplification as admittedly that has a real time element to it (bars filling up yadda yadda).

But as pointed out not every game in the series is like that.
The series covers the full gamut from pure TB to weird-arse hybrid, to normal RTwP.

I honestly don't know why they moved to RTwP when so many people seemed to really like the TB stuff in FFX.

Which were the games with true TB?