Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 4:00 am Post subject: My paper on RPG's... (Controversial!!)... Part 1...
This is just the first part of a paper I've been working on for a while, (in conjunction with both a RPG, (well, MMORPG), game-idea and subsequent RPG-system idea). I've finished part 2 aswell, though I'm still wondering if it's worth me continuing? (The third part, it has to be said is definitely the main one, and I'm getting a little stuck-for-words atm.):
A Discussion about Computer-based Role-Playing Games, and Computer-based Role-Playing Game (RPG) Systems
(As Introduction For My Computer-Based RPG System Idea)
I drew up my first initial design document in 2005, but after reading it – it was obvious it had a lot of shortcomings as a ‘game’ design document. (I’d already had a lot more ideas about how I wanted the game to work, and without those the document was very ‘anaemic’). However, what it really was, though it still needed improving, was a game system design document, (in this case, a role-playing-system design document). So, I had a choice: either I try and re-do the game design document, and just explain the bare underlying mechanics to support the new ideas used in the game - or, I could do a system design document and use the ideas in the game to support the ideas and flexibility of the system. After some careful deliberation, I decided to do the latter…
The reason for that, was that although some of the new ideas in my game could be implemented independently of the system I was working on, some of the ideas required it, and if I was going to explain the system at all, then I really need to do it properly, as a whole.
Not only that, but as I started working on the system, rather than the game, more ideas appeared about just how much scope, depth, and options it could support, and some of my initial ideas about the game changed aswell to support this. However, as I started to fully figure out how I wanted everything to work – (though some of the ideas were still linked with the game, such as the combat system I thought of) – and started discussing how it worked with some friends, (one of whom was doing a computer gaming course at Lincoln University here in England, and now works for Free Radical Design), it became obvious that some people would need more explanation as to why I chose the system to work in a particular way. This paper is here to help explain, and explore these reasons.
Not only that, but it seems that a lot of people seem to have trouble identifying or agreeing as to what a computer-based RPG actually is. I put forward my own argument in this paper…
Concept – system:
A computer-based role-playing game system that’s flexible enough to support almost any type of role-playing game on top of it – up to and including a full massive-multiplayer-online-RPG (MMORPG), capable of supporting turn/phase and/or real-time based components, whilst managing to avoid and/or fix a number of problems encountered with other systems. It is also intended to be flexible enough to offer a varying and chosen amount of user-directed character development in a balanced manner, allowing for such variations to be used in the same game by differing players as they so choose.
(Note 1: I’ll be explaining my entire game-system fully in another paper, (I hope), though I’ll be mentioning parts of it here and there as I explain certain points throughout this paper).
(Note 2: I’m just using my game idea, (which I’ll be mentioning parts of), to support the idea of the game system, and although I have no doubt it would be possible for this game to be made, I also have no doubt that it would be very hard, expensive, and take a long time – especially from scratch. However, since I believe it would be best to include as much as I think is possible with the system, and with the system itself being as flexible and as modular as it is – it should be a lot easier to start with a full idea and take smaller chunks from it, than start with a few individual ideas and try and build a much larger game with them).
(Note 3: I’ve called my game Master of Fiends after the book, though it doesn’t actually have to use that much from it – (names of character’s etc. can be changed, and the overall situation of the game doesn’t have to be exactly the same as that in the book – most of it is just suggested anyway)).
Strangely enough, this question is harder to answer than it may seem. In a fully live-action role-playing game/scenario – the game is exactly what it says – people playing the role of another character to achieve whatever aims the game has. Unfortunately, in the realm of computer games – this description could now be applied to so many disparate games, (from first-person shooters to platform games to any other game where you play as another person or entity), that it wouldn’t really serve much purpose, so the literal definition doesn’t work – and this is just the start of the problems with trying to define this genre….
Now, I know that there are many explanations and similar definitions of RPG, in places like Wikipedia etc. but I don’t like them… The reason for this, is that they’re simply not defined well enough to count, literally, as a single-genre… (Try saying that any band with a drum kit in it is a rock-band, for instance – we know what a drum kit sounds like, so it gives us a large clue as to what sort of music it works with – but it doesn’t tell us entirely what the overall sound will be like – will it be a big-band? Heavy-metal? Rock? Country? Yes, they all tend to have the same musical roots, (blues), but they’ve all developed in different ways on top of that, and sound differently because of that – the same applies here...). The type of games which count as RPG’s under these wide-ranging definitions, can be SO disparate and different in game-play terms, especially now, as computer games have evolved so far, that the label of RPG, as far as game-play is concerned, means very little… And that’s the EXACT opposite of what a genre is supposed to be…
The whole point about having genres of entertainment, is so that potential customers have some idea about what the product offers before they buy it. In music, the genre gives you a good idea of what it will sound like. This is independent of whoever is playing, or even the instruments they play to a certain degree, or whatever they look like etc.. That’s because what they sound like is all that is really important for people to know before hand…
So, in order to decide what game(s) is/are an RPG, we need to focus on how it plays, since that is what makes a game… Again, not how it looks, or who makes it etc.. Just like calling any music ‘heavy-metal’, simply because the band chooses to wear leather jackets, (even if it’s a string quartet), doesn’t really make any sense... Unfortunately, whereas the term ‘heavy-metal’ has come to stand for a specific sound of music, the term ‘role-playing game’ and the games it describes have changed and evolved over time, in the field of computer games, which is, again, a consequence of the definition being too loose… (I feel it IS important to seperate the computer-based RPG's, (including game consoles aswell), from any other sort of role-playing games, since it’s precisely how flexible computers are in the types of games and game-play they can offer that helps create this problem to begin with).
Although these are two descriptions – there, is, however, more to this problem…
There is another genre closely related to RPG’s: The adventure game… Adventure games also tend to focus on character-based game-play, aswell as plot, and narrative, though the actual game-play can vary quite a lot, from point-and-click adventures, to text adventures to action-adventure games, (such as Nintendo’s Legend Of Zelda series). So, if playing the role of a character, through a story in a fantasy world isn’t enough to be counted as an RPG, then what is…?
Well, the next step-up from a basic adventure game, is one in which the character automatically develops over time, as the game is played, based on the actions of the character in normal game-play. So, is a game that works like this (such as a lot of Squaresoft’s Final Fantasy series, or Gas Powered Games’ Dungeon Siege), an RPG?
(Here’s where I really start to get controversial!).
The problem I have with these games, is that their basic game-play, is, actually, not too dissimilar from, an action-adventure game. The whole point about these games, is, that, again, they focus on the basic game-play, (such as combat etc.), (and also the plot/narrative etc.), rather than the actual character development, which, since it’s automatic as you play the game, (‘on rails’), it doesn’t actually impact the game-play in any really meaningful manner… The only real difference between these games and adventure games, is that, because the characters DO develop over the course of the game, they need to let the player know about it, so they tend to use lots of numbers to represent the attributes of the character(s) to let the player know how/when/where they’ve developed. It’s just that the player has no power over these figures, and so, in the long run, they don’t really have that much of an imapct in game-play terms… So, because of this, I class these games as ‘adventure-games with RPG elements’ (AGRE's) because that is EXACTLY what they are…
So, what does an RPG add, that makes the game-play more involving and different to an adventure game, (or even ‘adventure-games with RPG elements’)?
It adds a level of CHOICE for the player, between an action and its resulting reward for the character, as opposed to an ‘adventure-game with RPG elements’, which automates the link between the two – for instance, if we kill 10 monsters, and we automatically gain 10 life, then it would be an AGRE, but if we kill them again, but now have a choice, about whether or not we wish to increase our characters health, energy, strength, dexterity, etc., then it would become an RPG, and not an adventure game, or an AGRE…
This ‘little’ change can and does have massive (as-in ABSOLUTELY HUGE!) implications in game-play terms, and it’s this that should make computer-based RPG’s what they are, and distinct from ANY other genre, in my opinion.
------------------------------------------
(Computer) Role-Playing-Games:
Options, Choices, Decisions – And The Illusions Thereof…
An RPG, by it’s very nature, is about a player controlling, (‘taking the role of’), another character, (or characters), being bound by that characters attributes, skills and abilities, then using, managing and choosing to develop those attributes, skills and abilities, as they play the game, in order to ‘complete’ it.
Basically, RPG’s are all about user-directed character development, (above and beyond any abilities gained in general (basic) game-play) - if the game is not about this, as its central idea, then it’s not an RPG.
Since a role-playing game generally has many different areas relating to each other about the character’s capabilities, letting the player know exactly how all the components are related to each other is usually a good thing. It allows a player to make far more informed decisions in developing their character – and not having to rely so much on chance when doing so… It’s supposed to be their character, not the games – even if it is just an illusion...
More-so than almost any other game-type, an RPG is ALL about illusions: of freedom, power, and choice. The trick is in finding the right balance for the game and the audience it is aimed at. Unfortunately for some, (like me), the mainstream audience has shown that it really doesn’t care too much about choice – they’re perfectly fine being told what to do, and gaming is no different from any other form of entertainment in this regard. If that is the exact audience that you are most interested in aiming for, then, quite simply, what I’m talking about here isn’t what you’re looking for… To be honest, that sort of audience would probably be better off with an adventure game, (or an AGRE), anyway, rather than an RPG...
If on the other hand, you’re after a far more complex game, with more scope and choice – (i.e. a ‘proper’ RPG) – OR you are after a game that can cater to a number of different types of player, be it a mainstream casual gamer, ASWELL as a more 'hardcore' RPG player, then I’d like to see what you think to my ideas and opinions, (though most of my ideas will be in another paper about my RPG-system).
So, an RPG is about illusions of freedom. Not just of movement and adventure, like any other similar style of game, but of choice and power over the character (or characters) under the players control and its (or their) development.
The problem with illusions, is that they’re very hard to maintain. And this is the first thing a lot of RPG’s fail to do properly. The problem with most of the options a player has to choose from in a lot of RPG’s is that they are simply not viable choices for a player to make – i.e. any choice that a player makes that isn’t as much use to them in game-play terms, (and generally a waste of some resources his character needs, in addition to the time the player has put in), isn’t viable. This can be down to a few different reasons – problems with the game system and its implementation, problems with the game design and/or just lack of time/effort/money to test and fix all the problems thoroughly… However, a good system should help make things easier for any game designed using it…
Since RPG’s are all about having options for a player to make decisions about, it’s normally essential that all the options are balanced, so that, although it may be different, each option should bring a roughly equal benefit in game-play terms within roughly the same amount of time. (I.e. they’re all viable). The more options there are at any given time, and the more disparate they are, the harder this becomes, (though a good system should help). Not only that, but in a fairly linear game, where a player’s character might have to be at a certain stage of development in order to progress, it becomes essential in making sure that no matter how the player has chosen, it will still be good enough to continue and complete the game. (Forcing any player to re-play the game from scratch because they’ve made the wrong choice is just penalising them for no real reason, or exploiting them to make the game last longer (and a lot of them will see it that way and be annoyed/frustrated – and annoying/frustrating a player is a bad thing)). This generally means that less choice is generally better for the developer when making a linear game, of course – but the problem with this, is that it generally makes the game-play very repetitive – and that’s a bad thing too…
The main answer RPG’s have had to this quandary, is the use of the 'character class'… Each class, is basically a smaller ‘package’ of choices and options to be made throughout the game, and therefore more limited in scope and development. The two main reasons for using character classes, are that they both enable the character development to be regimented fairly carefully to fit the game, and that they can also be tailored to fit different playing styles which the player might want to use, without penalising them for choosing incorrectly. The problem with them though, is that, since the choices within each class will be a LOT less than they would be without them, and since the character development has to be fairly regimented – each class generally has a lot less choice for the player than it would otherwise seem - (assuming all the choices within are even viable). This generally makes choosing which class to play the single most important choice for a player, and minimises the impact of most of choices they will have to make afterwards. Because of this, and the fact that since each character class will have distinct abilities, (which may also be needed to complete the game), some games allow the player to control more than one character at a time (‘party-based’ games). The problem with this, is that it means less emotional attachment is generally made between the player and any single character, and managing multiple characters can also be far harder than a single one, both for the player, AND the game… However, for a single-player game, (and even a multi-player one?), the impact of having a variety of characters to control of different abilities at different points during a game, can more than outweigh any of the negatives, making this sort of game very popular. Because of this, any proper RPG system should be capable of supporting this type of game…
For a single-character based game, though, character classes, (although they work) - because of the extra limitations they present to the player and the developer - are almost a ‘curse’ plaguing most RPG’s, (though to be honest, this, again, mainly affects MMORPG's): They generally enforce so much emphasis on both differentiating each class, and then balancing out those differences, that creating and maintaining the classes themselves, almost becomes the main purpose of the developer, when, if anything, the world and the game they are supposed to be played in should be just as important. Character classes are not just an illusion for the player – but also for the developer, which are a symptom of the underlying problem:
How to package, and present all the choices and options in a game for the player TO the player.
And the reason why character classes are a ‘problem’ is because all that is happening is that a choice between 70-80% of all the viable options available to the player, are then made right at the beginning of the game. This then leaves having to pad out the 20-30% of viable choices to fit the rest of the game… So you should be able to see why I mention the word repetitive. Now, this is only repetitive in actual game-play terms – if the background, plot, and the scenario of the game are strong enough – you may be able to get away with it, (though this doesn’t happen all that often, however, in my opinion). (Of course, for the mainstream market, which doesn’t like making many choices – it’s probably a good thing).
For a mainly linear story-based game, though, be it single or limited multi-player, character classes can work pretty well, precisely because they can be very closely tied to the plot in the game, and make things move along properly, no matter how the player has chosen, since everything is those style of games is pretty narrow – from the game world to the characters abilities and choice the player has over them… As games become more ‘open’, however, (leading up to MMORPG’s), this sort of character development starts to feel very limiting, and this is when the problems with character classes really start to appear…
An example of this, is that they can make adding additional depth to the game a lot harder. Simply adding more classes, or even more options in each class – (though at the expense of those already existing) - (width), should be easier though. Having said that, certain games have managed to ‘disguise’ width as depth, and so make the game last longer that way – the main reason this tends to work, is that width is a lot easier to deal with and balance out, which, in a competitive (player-versus-player) game, is extremely useful, whilst it still gives the player something to aim for, and choices to make about their character. (Crowd Control Productions' (CCP) Eve-Online is a good example of this).
For certain types of games, (mainly MMORPG’s), depth can mean a lot. (I.e. it means for how long in time they can keep playing and developing the character(s) they have created, without having to start again with another - and since most MMORPG’s are nearly all about time, (it’s what they sell), you can see why it’s important…). Since the ability to add depth at a later date should go without saying in an MMO, using character classes can actually be a little counter-productive, which is another reason why most additions to MMORPG’s tend to not to add very much depth to character development, (and then drag it out through any additional environmental content they’ve added). Basically – character classes do NOT scale easily – (unless aiming for the width-as-depth scenario I mentioned before – but then the whole game needs to be designed using that system from the beginning, and such a system doesn’t work that well when using character classes)… For single-player games this doesn’t present much of a problem, though it depends if you plan on expanding a game that much or not. For multi-player games however, (especially of the ‘Massive Online’ variety), it’s a different matter…
Unfortunately, it seems that many games choose one method of adding depth to a game, and I also consider it a large problem as-well. Of course, the reason it exists is simple – literally – it’s a very easy method of adding more depth to a game without having to work really hard at it, (which generally goes hand-in-hand with the problem with character classes). It’s something I call ‘The-Same-Thing-But-Better Syndrome’. The main place this appears tends to be with a character’s equipment in a game, though it can also appear in its skills and abilities too. Quite simply, say if a character started off with a sword that does 10 damage, and then gains about 50 levels and winds up with a sword that has no other impact in the game, but to do 1000 damage – (especially if the amount of damage needed to kill an enemy has increased proportionately), then it would count as the-same-thing-but-better, since it hasn’t affected the game-play in the slightest…
Don’t get me wrong – EVERY RPG will suffer from this problem to a certain degree – there’s no way of escaping it. It’s just I wish it was mitigated by some other form of player involvement in how the equipment is used and/or developed above and beyond this. It’s one of the main reasons why I find many games very repetitive (and therefore boring)…
Having said all of that – multi-player games can have another very big concept governing the whole design, systems and mechanics of a game:
Player-versus-player (PvP) competitive game-play.
The problem with PvP orientated games, is that once PvP is decided as being part of the game – it effects all the RPG elements – (all the character development/abilities/skills etc.) – basically the entire system, in a very decisive manner. The main aim of a PvP orientated game, is to give the players a chance to have an impact on the game against other players, above and beyond the character they’ve created and are controlling, whilst still being bound by the characters attributes/skills/abilities and general game-play mechanics. This means that everything in the game has to be balanced against everything else at the same stage of development during the game. The reason for this, is that once you start emphasising certain characters or some elements of the game over others – you start to discriminate, and that should be considered a very big mistake for all concerned – you just wind up punishing people and limiting the choices even further. What’s the point in creating a game with 6 character classes if only 4 survive in general game-play in a PvP game? However, this doesn’t mean that the situations and environment the characters are in have to be balanced, so long as the player has some control and impact upon it. Some players might want to go on a 5vs100 suicidal rampage and see how long they last – others won’t and shouldn’t really be forced to…
Either way – what this all means, is that in a PvP game, each character, its skills, abilities and attributes, along with any potential temporary items/equipment, all have to be balanced with other characters at every stage in its development – from the start right up to its full potential. If there are ANY discrepancies, players WILL exploit them, if they can, when they’re positive, or shun them altogether if they’re negative. Either way – a lot of potential choices and options in the game are affected in a negative manner – and that’s a bad thing. Because of this reason to regiment everything out again, character classes actually work well in a PvP orientated game for this very reason… (If implemented well). (This is, of course, a reason why the width-as-depth method works well - any stages of development that do exist, generally have less to balance out…).
Having said all that, it’s entirely possible that there are enough players who would like to make the game harder, and may therefore like characters who are not fully balanced in this way. It’s still better, though, if such a thing was planned and designed into the game rather than discovered later – this way a player can make an informed decision of how they would like to play.
Making a system that doesn’t support PvP is hard, if not impossible, since it is how the system is implemented, rather than the system itself that matters. It’s just down to how well it’s been implemented… Most of the balance issues though should be dealt with at the game-design stage – if it’s not designed to be balanced, then you’ll have problems regardless… (Unfortunately, I’ve played a lot of games, where this doesn’t seem to have been the case…). Of course, a good system should make balancing things easier…
The (silent, unfortunately) majority of people playing MMORPG’s, however, don’t play them for the competitive game-play. (Though they may still play like that if it’s optional, temporary, and has no lasting negative effects on their character – just for fun). The majority of people who play MMORPG’s, play them because they like playing with, not against, other people, (Player vs Environment, or PvE) - (though whether that is closely, in a party, or loosely – on their own but still interacting with other players in other ways to their benefit - is up to them, if the game supports it) – and how well, (if at all), a game caters to these players is up to the developer. Unfortunately, though, being one of these sorts of people myself, I feel very taken-for-granted. I know it’s not really fair for me to say that – since nearly every game has some PvE content – it’s just it seems that a lot of the major game-play development and emphasis at the minute is being given to PvP systems, and not PvE, and I think that’s bad… Well – ok, so that’s not entirely true, but I’ve yet to see a game really take advantage of a PvE environment properly…
Because of this – the main game-idea I have, (which I will go into far more detail about in another paper, (I hope)), is for a full PvE only MMORPG, using the fact that it’s co-operative and not competitive as best as possible. The main point about a PvE game that makes it different from a PvP game, is that it’s possible to have different characters being unbalanced as they go through the game… Only the creation and ultimate-potential of these characters needs to be balanced against one another. It’s not the character that matters here – it’s the player, and the amount of time and effort they’ve put in to the game that needs to be balanced with the character’s current and potential capability… Since each player’s character doesn’t have to be balanced to the nth degree, like they do for PvP games, it actually makes character classes less important. (If you don’t understand or ‘get’ this – you’ll have to wait – my game idea is based heavily on this idea, and will be explained in detail then).
These are some of the main decisions and choices to be made by developers’ right at the concept stage of the game, and affect everything about how the mechanics of the game works, and its purpose. To recap, and introduce any I missed or glossed over, it includes: whether you want a single player or multi-player game; a single character or party-based game; how tightly you wish to tie the underlying mechanics (especially those governing the development of the character and his attributes/skills/abilities and equipment) to any plot in the game, (be it very loosely defined or very specific); whether or not you wish to make it a player-versus-player competitive game or not, (if multi-player), and whether or not you wish to use character classes or some other method of managing the options a player is presented with in the game…
Every choice made here, is about choosing the ultimate boundary of the illusions that are implemented within the game.
-----------------------------
The Game-World:
Of course, the main illusion in most computer games, is the world in which they are set, and in this regard an RPG is no different from many other types of game… Unlike most of the other illusions though, this one is mainly governed solely by the resources the developer has available to create it – though that’s not to say that there are no differences between a well-designed world and a badly designed one, regardless of the quality of its appearance and artwork, its sound and overall atmosphere… The main thing a well designed world will do, especially in an RPG, is flow. In other words:
a) The world will always be able to offer the right level of challenge, rewards, and resources for a character at every stage in its development, and make it known where - (sometimes only roughly, since exploration should also be a large part of this type of game) - these are to be found, if it is not presented to the player in a linear fashion, or there are multiple paths the player can follow through the world. Whether or not a developer chooses to make other, harder or easier challenges available to the player at the same time, may depend heavily on the type of game created.
b) The player never gets stuck, not knowing (again, maybe even only roughly) what and where they should be going or doing next, (or where and how to get that information), though some particularly ‘open’ games – (those which have a lot of different choices a player can make at any given time) – make decide to make only some of them obvious, and let the player try and find out about the others for themselves, giving the player a sense of achievement when they do. The mainstream market generally shuns this type of game though, (for obvious reasons).
c) The game-world will be the right size for both the amount of game-play (and development thereof) contained within, as-well as the amount of players that are expected to play within, (especially in a MMO). If the world is too big for the game-play – it tends to make the game overly repetitive again, and if it’s also too big for the amount of players within it, (for an MMO), then most of the social side of the multi-player game will suffer, (and that’s a very bad thing for an MMORPG) – of course, if it’s too small, that will create (obvious) problems as-well…
Another thing to consider when designing a game-world for a massive-multi-player game, is how well both the players and resources are, and will be, spread within – the last thing you want is for all the players to be in the same location - forcing players to wander out and explore the world in differing ways, has to be one of the main factors to consider in its design…
Again, a well designed RPG system will allow for a lot of different ways for a player and his character to interact with its environment and its content, giving the developer a large range of options in how limited or open the game world can be.
There is, however, one problem when dealing with any game world in an RPG – although one of the main aims of any game-world is to try an immerse the player as much as possible, because an RPG will have more elements above and beyond the basic game-play - it can make doing so a lot harder to achieve – (the stats and figures etc. will tend to break the immersive-ness somewhat)… Again, this is one of the main reasons why a lot of companies these days seem to be concentrating on adventure games, or AGRE’s rather than RPG’s, if what I’ve heard and read is correct…
------------------------------------
My (Interim) Conclusion:
All-in-all however, the decisions, choices, and options in an RPG, SHOULD be there - (in my opinion) - to ultimately provide one thing… And it’s this one thing that really makes computer-based role-playing-games what they are, and distinct from other types of computer game, (especially AGRE’s) – and unfortunately, too many developers seem to lose sight of this…
At the end of the day, the one thing that needs to evolve in tandem with everything else in an RPG, is the game-play itself… And because it’s the player who has to make the choices and decisions affecting his character – the player should also, therefore, be able to influence the development of the game-play too…
This is what makes a (computer-based) RPG what it is, (or what it should be), and is a extremely powerful experience if used properly, and should never be ignored or forgotten – but embraced…
Unfortunately, some RPG’s, (noticeably MMORPG’s), seem to be moving away from this idea, and be content with suffering from ‘the-same-thing-but-better’ syndrome I talked about earlier – which, I’m sorry, but in my opinion, it’s just lazy and boring, and most games, (let alone computer games), (let alone MMORPG’s!), can’t AFFORD to be boring – the moment they are, they lose the primary reason for their existence…
The fact is, (and the main reason I’m writing this), is that RPG’s, and especially MMORPG’s, in my opinion, have THE most potential left for growth and development out of ANY single genre in computer games – (though a lot can be done by mixing genres as-well) - and I just find it so frustrating to be confronted with pretty much the same thing, (but slightly better), every time I try a new MMORPG, when I’m pretty sure we could have had something a LOT better by now – it’s been quite a while since Everquest was released, after all… (So why do a lot of games still repeat some of the old problems that game suffered from? (Problems? What problems? – Well, we’ll see, shall we?)).
One More Thing:
There’s also one other BIG factor in an MMORPG I’d like to mention:
Since, in my opinion, the main thing these games should have going for them, are the persistent worlds they are set in – the one thing I feel they should be able to offer, is, (though this depends greatly on its design): the ability of any and all players to do, and for their characters to become, something unique. This is another area that has a lot of potential left, and I’ve tried to touch upon this with my game idea – (though it’s something I’m still thinking about and working on).
-------------------------------------------------
So, hopefully, now, anyone reading this will have a good idea of where I’m coming from, as far as the foundation of my views on RPG’s are concerned. Whether or not anyone will agree with them, is something I can not assume, but I do hope it will provide everyone with something that they feel is worth thinking about in more detail.
I’ll be spending the rest of this paper (hopefully to come in part 2 (and then 3 and 4 etc.)) talking about a number of specific areas in RPG’s which I feel could also be improved upon, (and have tried to do so, with both my game system and MMORPG game idea, (though I will not be explaining much of my own solutions to any of the problems I talk about until I present the full game and system idea in one go…))....
It's come to my attention, (mainly through feedback from my friend at Free Radical), that I still wasn't clear enough in explaining how the differences in game-play actually worked. Because of that, I thought I might aswell add some examples to show exactly what I mean...
As I've said before, normal Adventure games are generally about playing the role of a character, and following a plot/narrative using the basic game-play for whatever type of game it is, (be it a text/point-and-click or action-adventure). In short, although the player may have some choice about the paths they may follow in the game, none of those choices affect the basic game-play. The only thing that tends to affect the game-play in an adventure game, is if the character gains some peice of equipment that allows for more game-play options, (though this is generally carefully scripted into the game).
I'd like to compare this with the basic-game-play of another type of game, (for reasons that shall be explained later), the beat-em-up. Again, a normal beat-em-up generally focuses on set basic game-play - giving the player a character with a list of set combat moves to use against a succesion of opponents. Although the order of the opponents may be chosen, this doesn't affect the basic game-play. Although the basic game-play between the two types of game differ, the philosophy behind the use of that game-play and game-play mechnics are not too dissamilar.
So, if we can imagine a beat-em-up in place of a normal adventure game, I will now, using a beat-em-up as a template, show how all the slight differences in the game-play and game-play mechanics differentiate between the types of game I was talking about before, and show why I feel that the differences are enough to define the genre's as I've done...
Example 1: ADVENTURE GAME:
As I said above, a normal beat-em-up is a substitute for a normal adventure game, which it's emphasis on the basic game-play, and without any real user influence, power, or control over any development thereof. I'd like you to imagine a basic beat-em-up with only three moves, a punch, kick, and a hold/grab/throw. The player will have full power over how and when to use these moves, though how the player uses them to respond to the computer-controlled opponent will tend to be paramount. The player is still, generally, (though not always), just following the path which the game has given them, (i/e the order in which the opponenets are fought), without any real power or control beyond the basic game-play. Basically, an adventure game is ALL ABOUT THE BASIC GAME-PLAY, (just like a normal beat-em-up), with no real user interaction into any development thereof.
Example 2: ADVENTURE GAME (that-looks-like-an-RPG-but-appearances-can-be-deceptive)
Take that normal 3-move beat-em-up again. The basic game-play will be no different here from the normal beat-em-up. The way this type of game works though, would be that after an opponent is beaten - the characters moves would then improve automatically - however, since every opponent will be designed with this feature in mind, it actually makes no difference to the game-play at all - you still have only the same 3 basic moves, and each opponent will still, generally be just as hard to beat. Just because each move might have 'levels' (1,2,3 etc.) to let you know that they've improved, (basic RPG elements), it doesn't mean it has any actual impact on the game-play...
Example 3: ADVENTURE GAME (Similar to above but even more restrictive)
If we take the system above, but now make it so that only the move that the player has used the most in each fight, now improves afterwards, then it would be similar in game-play to quite a few games, (such as Gas-Powered-Games Dungeon Siege). I actually feel that this is a step back from the previous style, since it actually places limits on the basic game-play depending on how you wish to develop the character. Although the player appears to have a choice - because it's about restricting how the player plays the game, it's still only an adventure game with light RPG elements.
Example 4: ADVENTURE GAME (with light RPG elements).
If we take example 2 again, but this time give the player some more moves, rather than just improve the same moves over again, then, although it affects the game-play, since the player has no power or control over it, and it still places the emphasis on the basic game-play, it's still an adventure game with light RPG elements.
Example 5: ADVENTURE GAME (with RPG elements).
If we now take example 3, but use the addition of more moves, rather than the development of the existing moves after an opponent is beaten, it , again, seems to add far more flexibility, (since we need to choose how to play to get certain rewards), but again, it still, (in my opinion), focuses too much on the basic game-play, and like before, I still feel it's too limiting to count as full RPG, though, yes, it certainly has more RPG elements than any example so far...
Example 6: ADVENTURE GAME (with heavy RPG elements). (Controversial!)
Now, if we take the above example, but offer a choice of which moves we can use, rather than be given them automatically, then it would appear to become an RPG. However, since I still feel that it limits the options in basic game-play too much - (forcing the player to use one move/style of game-play over another, even though you can choose how it develops) - I still feel the basic game-play is too close to an adventure game to become a full RPG. I know others will disagree strongly here, but, again, I feel it's too limited by the basic game-play to be a full RPG.
Example 7: ROLE PLAYING GAME
For a game to be an RPG, the basic game-play shuoldn't matter, in my opinion. In other words, how the game is played should have no impact on any choices and options the player is presented with - i.e. the choices are above and beyond the basic game-play. In other words, if we have a 3-move beat-em-up, how a player uses those moves to beat an opponent makes no difference to any other choices or options the player gets offered. So, if the player beats an opponent, they then get a choice over how their character develops, regardless of how they have done so, (unlike the previous example).
Since the options have no relation to how the player has played with his character, (only that they have done enough to earn the reward of being able to develop it, (in this case, beating an opponent in a beat em up)), (i.e. it's above and beyond the basic game-play), it is possible to add options which otherwise would be harder to implement and balance out - (though since a beat-em-up is fairly simple, there would probably not be much scope for that many options here) - such as, in this case, more options to develop existing moves, additional moves, additional weapons, and anything else you can think of - the sky is most definitely the limit.
So, an RPG, when playing as a character, should be about having flexibility in how to play the game, with power over how the game-play develops, (even if it's fairly slight, (as when using the same-thing-but-better)).
Although the differences between the last two seem slight, I feel that, game-play wise, it is enough to make a big difference. Likewise the difference between examples 5 and 6. I definitely feel that these differences are more than enough to affect it's overall genre...
How many will agree, however, is another matter... _________________ Darren Tomlyn
Tune-writer / Fiddle-player
http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn
Last edited by KeillRandor on Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:07 am; edited 8 times in total
ADR Character: Level : 1 Class : Monk Race : Half Elf Element : Fire Alignment : Good
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:20 am Post subject:
Cool. My brother did not understand most of it and he is only a year younger than me (I'm 18 he is 17) but your idea of an entierly PVE MMORPG is kind of lame. Like you could center the game on PVE but have PVP in an arena or a special zone that would just make it so that PVP is only acsessed by player choice and make it just like the game but with other players but the PVP has no bonuses and no penalties. _________________ Hi i'm Zell
Cool. My brother did not understand most of it and he is only a year younger than me (I'm 18 he is 17) but your idea of an entierly PVE MMORPG is kind of lame. Like you could center the game on PVE but have PVP in an arena or a special zone that would just make it so that PVP is only acsessed by player choice and make it just like the game but with other players but the PVP has no bonuses and no penalties.
PvP wouldn't really work within my game, since each character will be too unbalanced against each other - (for instance 2 lvl 1 characters will have different capabilities depending on how long their respective owners had been playing the game, and also depending on how many characters they've been through). The only way PvP will work will be to make it a completely seperate game, which, tbh, would be a better idea anyway - I've always felt that PvE and PvP limit each other VERY heavily in the MMORPG arena. I can think of SO many compromises that have to be made because of PvP it's rediculous. I've also planned to use the PvE side of things more than has been done so far in any other MMO I've played - so trying to compare my game idea with any that currently exists isn't really fair to either - (especially when I haven't explained very much about mine).
Though like I said - a) I wasn't expecting many people to really understand my game idea yet, (since it's intended for another paper anyway), and b) my game idea doen't matter anywhere near as much as my RPG system anyway...
Again, people not fully understanding what I'm talking about here, sadly, doesn't surprise me in the slightest... After a lot of discussions with a lot of people - (some of whom are in the industry and others who are just players like me) - the amount of people who really seem to understand this subject to this extent are, well, very limited - which is why I've been writing this paper to begin with...
Whether or not you'll understand a little more with Part 2, I don't know... _________________ Darren Tomlyn
Tune-writer / Fiddle-player
http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn
If you want to know WHY I'm not surprised that you think that my idea for a fully co-operative PvE MMORPG is lame, though, then it's simple:
All you'll know about PvE at this time, is how all the current games use it - which, to be perfectly honest, isn't that great, like you said... The FACT still remains, though, that FAR MORE people play these games this way than competitively (PvP)...
If we take World of Warcraft for example, (though most MMORPG's not entirely focusing on PvP, (like Eve-online for instance, where the breakdown demographic will be skewed differently), will do), then there will be five main groups of people playing it - those who just play through the PvE content, those who play PvE and a bit of PvP, but arn't too bothered about the latter, those who like both equally, those who prefer PvP, but will still play PvE, and those who exclusively play in a competitive (PvP) manner.
The size of the FIRST TWO groups, will completely outweigh the others by a very large margin. The reason WHY WoW is so propular to begin with - is precisely BECAUSE they were the first game to 'hit the nail on the head' for the casual gamers in those two groups! The fact that they added in some competitive gameplay to cater for the others, (aswell as to add some more longetivity), just increases the size of the market they can cater to...
How do I know this? Because I'm ONE OF THEM. In every MMO I've played, I've spent most of my time playing with and chatting to an awful lot of similar players, and, as I said in my paper, we just tend to get on with it, quitely, without fussing too much. The downside of that, is that if the company behind these games asks people for feedback in any other way APART from going and playing with and talking to these people like I did, then you'll only get feedback from the louder, noisier people who want to be heard...
And guess what groups most of these people are in? Not the first two! (I gather it's the same for you, Zell_Dincht?).
The fact is, is that for PvP/competitve gamers - there are already plenty of games out there to play - (and I'm not just talking MMO's). In fact, because of this - the market for any MMO focusing on PvP, actually probably isn't as big as it appears. (If it was, then Eve Online, or Planetside should have done FAR better than they have).
The fact is, is that there simply, isn't, a SINGLE MMORPG out there, that focuses ENTIRELY on PvE gameplay, and therefore refuses to be compromised by any PvP content. And if that dosen't sound like a GAP IN THE MARKET I don't know what does...!
Trust me, the potential for things that become possible in PvE style game-play, (when any competitive game-play doesn't need to be considered), is probably bigger than even I can imagine - and I've been working on my game idea now, on and off, for about 4-5 years! _________________ Darren Tomlyn
Tune-writer / Fiddle-player
http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn
I prefer PVE, if I wanted to play a PVP I'd play a first person shooter or a fighting game.
Yes, for game balance reasons things cannot be fully customizable. Even games where the stats aren't rightup in your face put limitations. But this is wy it's a game and not rl. And why it doesn't suck so bad lol!
The problem is creating a balanced system is difficult. It might appear balanced, but then someone figures out how to completely break one of their powers. This is why alot of games are constantly being patched with updates. There always seems to be a redheaded stepchild to of every game. Diablo 2's was the sorceress. (Even though in the game itself everyone was a total lesbian for you)
Another problem I have with rpgs is the lack of morality. You're the hero, you kill shit. That's it. It's too linear. I expect an rpg to explore my morality and have it effect not only people's reactions, but my future. If I say, burn a village. Not only do rumors spread, but then later, when I might need someone from the village for something, I can't cause I burned them! That would be an indepth and fun rpg!
Instead what I get is either dungeon crawl spam, like Diablo or Final Fantasy. Where I just customize my characters gear and spells, and maybe occasionaly answer a yes or no question for a quest.
Or I get linear alignment games that railroad me down a selected path anyway like Star Wars and Fable. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't excaggerate the alignment system as so indepth and innovative. Ussualy when a game is indepth and innovative, it doesn't get any sales because corporations are too pussy to go with something that might go over people's heads..
Fable 2 was not groundbreaking at all. It was simply Zelda with more options. And within the confines of the fantasy genre that may be alot. But it's nothing like they made it out to be. Halo fealt more like an rpg. Not because I have free choice, but because the story moved along at a near perfect pace, and the graphics/music fit the mood and tone of the game. I fealt like Master Chief. And thank God I'm not Master Cheif or else we'd be screwed lol!
Cortana: Master Cheif! That door is locked! You're going to have to fine another way in!
Master Chief: .... *Backsup the jeep and tries driving through the door*
Cortana: Think harder Cheif!
Halo kept me well entertained and I have alot of good memories playing it for the first time. Fable 2, the game I expected and was advertised to be the sortof game that would appeal to me that way. Didn't. It fealt like more often then not I was just forced to do something against my will, I had to run around like an idiot with no options, no power, and no idea what I was doing.
Every five minutes it was just "you're soooo evil!" Why? Because I refuse to acknowledge this police state crap of if I glare at people in a mean way I get arrested? If Fable 2 was anything like it said it was going to be I could've roleplayed resisting the law and forming an anti-authoritarian resistance. Yes, it might have evil consequinces, (especially since I'm reckless and selfish) such as the people are starving and without any sortof civilization, or it creates ghettos like bloodstone. But it would still be more rpgish not "you're evil, shutup and go do a sidequest or we'll do this all over again". Supposedly all these different fragments of your alignment don't really mean anything.
To put it simply, I am not giving an rpg the chance to dissapoint me again. I'm too poor and out of all the games I could've bought. Lionhead screwed me by convincing me to get Fable 2. Only to be insulted even more when half the f***ing game has to be downloaded on Xbox live. All those trailers, all those augments I kept hearing about, they're all on an island that doesn't even exist in the game and I have to download that supplemental content. What a bunchof bullshit.
I'll take my chances with first-person shooters. People will call me a casualfag, they'll say I don't know anything about gaming. Meanwhile I'll actually be enjoying myself and not having to complain all day about the faults that they're never going to fix in those shitty rehashes.. Third person shooters are the wave of the future not only for their own genre, but for rpgs. They're thinking with portals you could say... FPS have incoporated puzzles, (Portal) real science, (Half-Life) dungeon crawling, (Bioshock) complex roleplaying, (Deus Ex, Fallout 3) if anything. People who aren't playing FPS are casualfags. Too arrogant to move on to the promising waters of what is becoming better and better games.
My only real regret is getting an Xbox 360 and not a PS3. Not only would I have free internet gaming right now, but I'd basically be playing the same games. What with me looking forward to Singularity and Prototype. Not to Meation Playstation has so many more backward compatible games.
The only real reason I got an Xbox was for Fable 2, and once that turned out to be a bust I began to question the authenticity of my favorite system. I'm now looking up in desperation Xbox exclusive games to prove to myself that I was correct in my assertion and won't give those damn PSfags the victory they're close too. (It's my own fault for picking on them so much lol)
And what I'm finding is a bunch of hardass platformers like Blinx and Ninja Gaiden, rpgs I know to be a failure from exprience like Knights of the old Republic, The Halo franchise, and some indi shit like bikkini samurai whatever.
My God... I'm no better then those damn Nintendotards. Except instead of being some weaboo otaku f***, I'm a college fratboy who's entire collection of games revolves around army guys who abuse steroids and slutty women who know kungfu.
Though to be fair to myself. If I had gotten a PS3, I'd either be playing old Playstation 1 games from the flea market right now and my parents would be like "you already had a PS1 you moron", or I'd be using it as a dvd player as because of legal reasons and the fact Sony has to prettyup all it's games. Every decent game for PS3 takes forever to release. And the Xbox controller does feel more comfortable and is an improvement of it's predescessor. Where as they keep the same f***ing controller over and over again on Playstation..
So for those who are gamer whores, and want to butthurt about which system is the best....
PS3: Free internet, great backwards compatibility, dvd player.
Xbox360: Comfortable controls, more socialy friendly games not involving Japanese 13 year old girls, fast releases, more downloadable content, achievements. (I do like my acheivements. <3)
Wii: lol, nothing good about the Wii.
PC: Would be the best if it didn't lag and glitch so God-damn much. Unless you're rich or are an expert at designing hardware. Don't be a PC gamer..
Playstation did recently event "trophies" to counter Xbox'es achievements. But it just feels so plastic and forced.. Don't try to immitate. _________________ I see no reason why man should not be just as cruel as nature.
I prefer PVE, if I wanted to play a PVP I'd play a first person shooter or a fighting game.
Yes, for game balance reasons things cannot be fully customizable. Even games where the stats aren't rightup in your face put limitations. But this is wy it's a game and not rl. And why it doesn't suck so bad lol!
The problem is creating a balanced system is difficult. It might appear balanced, but then someone figures out how to completely break one of their powers. This is why alot of games are constantly being patched with updates. There always seems to be a redheaded stepchild to of every game. Diablo 2's was the sorceress. (Even though in the game itself everyone was a total lesbian for you)
(I cut off the rest since it's not really relevant to what I'm trying to discuss - I'm mainly trying to talk about RPG's from the 'power-and-flexibility-of-the-system-underpinning-the-game-FIRST, Game-second' point of view, not really about the actual games built on top of it so much).
Creating a balanced system, is a LOT easier, if that is WHAT YOU SET OUT TO DO from the very beginning...
Unfortunately, I guarantee you that very few computer games really take that into consideration, which is what causes all the problems, and why you get them sometimes pinching other systems that wern't intended for computer games (D&D etc.) instead etc..
The problem with RPG's, is that the system underpinning them is, if anything, as important as the game itself, but it's been pretty obvious to me for some time, that the underlying RPG systems always come second, after the game, and are shoehorned and limited by what they want the game to do, rather than the other way round...
This is why you get so many game-play elements in RPG's that were ovbiously thought of as 'a cool idea', but don't work consitently within the RPG system, and/or arn't balanced fully with the rest of the game-play mechanics, usually because of that.
Whereas, if you design the system to be balanced, then build the game-play on top of it, there should be far fewer problems, and if any do appear, then they should be far easier to fix...
The only game I've played so far which even FEELS like they've thought about taking that approach is Eve Online... Unfortunately they've almost shot-themselves-in-the-foot, by not using the same system consitently throughout the game, (i.e. for all the players AND the NPC's etc.). *sigh*.
But again, this is what my system is about, and for... _________________ Darren Tomlyn
Tune-writer / Fiddle-player
http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn
ADR Character: Level : 1 Class : Barbarian Race : Human Element : Fire Alignment : Neutral
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:51 pm Post subject:
Halo's as far from an RPG as any other shoot 'em up game.
Right, so.
Firstly, you make a fair point. However, what you have to consider is that the term 'RPG' encompasses the original concept. Specifically, we're talking really old games that run on the Final Fantasy-eque battle system.
Now, the definition of Roleplay is;
Spoiler:
noun
Acting a particular role (as in psychotherapy).
As such, were we to consider the term in its base sense, virtually any game with a protagonist could be considered a 'roleplaying' game. However, doing so would simply eradicate the RPG grouping.
Instead, the term must be taken less literally.
Roleplaying, therefore, becomes more about the player's influence on character development. Whilst it is, admittedly, arguable about how much or little choice could be deemed influentual, we already have an existing agreement of sorts.
Games which involve the levelling-up of character skills and/or base statistics are considered to be RPG's, or at least to contain RPG aspects. This is clearly illustrated by the original system (e.g Final Fantasy, Breath of Fire and so on), and the more recent real-time concept (Fable, Elder Scrolls, Falout etc).
Customization options may vary from simply class or skills to clothing and appearance, however the fact remains the same: These games have common aspects which allow them to fit into the 'RPG' category.
And don't get me started on MMORPG's. I despise them, mostly due to WoW Syndrome (an affliction which, as you may be aware, destroys the soul and social skills of individuals under repeated exposure). However, they still fit into the same category. And you cannot advocate MMO's without aggreeing the suitability of their predecessors to the category.
What you're suggesting, and for the record I believe this is an idea you should fully pursue, is another genre entirely. Video Games, at present, are making a slow-but-measurable move toward bigger decision driven plot developments. Fable 2, though admittedly not living up to the hype generated for it, illustrated this in it's basic sense;
Three paths (good, evil and neutral) which allowed the player to shape some of the environment around him. The issue with this is getting the game engine to cope with what is, essentially, constant data needing to be reacted to with constant processes. If I slaughter the population of a village, it requires a manageable amount of processes to change the player appearance according to the values incurred from these actions. On top of this, the engine must also edit NPC reactions to the player based on these values and, in some instances, influence the path the game will take. Not to mention eliminating any further interactions that were possible between the player and any quest/important characters that were within the numbers killed in our pseudo-village.
Take into account as well that these characters, as well as specific locations etc, may have different values to others of similar natures to them.
D'you see the issue?
And I know, I know, there are plenty of gamers who will say "Don't make excuses, we want X, Y and Z now".
To these individuals I say this: There are very good reasons why you are paying for these games and not making them. Be patient, be realistic, and stop whining.
So. Conclusion.
Basically, RPG still refers to specific conditions within a game. In my opinion, Zelda could be considered an RPG as well as an Action and Adventure title. What you'll notice is that they all retain specific elements.
As for decision driven plot developments, just be patient. They're coming along slowly, but it's all touch and go. Given enough time a company could, theoretically, release a game that was broad enough to be considered decision driven. However, the time and expense involved in this would just be unrealistic. Who wants to wait forever for a title?
Once the processes are refined a little, I'm sure you'll find something out there that suits. Just be thankful we're still not on Pong. _________________
Halo's as far from an RPG as any other shoot 'em up game.
Right, so.
Firstly, you make a fair point. However, what you have to consider is that the term 'RPG' encompasses the original concept. Specifically, we're talking really old games that run on the Final Fantasy-eque battle system.
Now, the definition of Roleplay is;
etc. etc....
P.s. you did actually read both parts of my 'paper' above didn't you? If you did, you'd find my answers to a lot of what you're talking about above!
Talking about the dynamic content side of things, IMO, that is also, or at least should be closely linked with the game-system in an RPG too, and therefore would need an RPG system thats scaleable enough to cope with it, (which no current systems are! (Mine, on the other hand, should be...)). _________________ Darren Tomlyn
Tune-writer / Fiddle-player
http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn
ADR Character: Level : 11 Class : Monk Race : Elf Element : Ice Alignment : Good
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject:
Quote:
An RPG, by it’s very nature, is about a player controlling, (‘taking the role of’), another character, (or characters), being bound by that characters attributes, skills and abilities, then using, managing and choosing to develop those attributes, skills and abilities, as they play the game, in order to ‘complete’ it.
Basically, RPG’s are all about user-directed character development, (above and beyond any abilities gained in general (basic) game-play) - if the game is not about this, as its central idea, then it’s not an RPG.
Biggest crock of bull in the entire essay. Don't get me wrong, it's full to the brim with crocks of bull. This is just the biggest one, and the source of most of the rest.
I won't touch JimProfit's post, not because he proved himself to be a moron, though he did, but because his idiotic trolling had nothing to do with the topic being discussed. You, on the other hand, Keill, have shown you have zero concept of what makes an RPG what it is, going so far as to claim the games that have DEFINED the RPG genre aren't RPGs at all.
Roleplaying Games have nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, pay close attention, NOTHING to do with how high you can willingly crank your strength stat as opposed to your proficiency in the Whoopyo@$$ skill. If that's all you want, there's a whole section of pen-and-paper RPers that even abuse that system that will be happy to have you. The rest of us call them "minmaxers," but I'm sure you'll find yourself right at home. After all, these people also have no appreciation for any story, as they only care about their glorious stats and how if they can take some liberties with this feat and this skill, then they can do this and do that much more damage and pwn whatever they want. Go on, go hang out with them, just don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.
The rest of us will be enjoying REAL roleplaying games, which include a well-developed story, character depth (and no, character depth means the quality of the character in terms of personality, history, behaviors, etcetera, not all of which must mandatorally be under the player's control, not how much control you have over where their stats go) and character interaction.
Sure, there's lots of great genres out there, and in truth, the only one I don't play is the sports genre, but RPGs are centered on the quality of the story and character depth and interaction, not on stats. And while some of your ideas are good, I have news for you. If all it's going to accomplish is defining RPGs as the fecal matter in which the fungus known as minmaxing flourishes, I hope your system never gets off the ground. _________________
An RPG, by it’s very nature, is about a player controlling, (‘taking the role of’), another character, (or characters), being bound by that characters attributes, skills and abilities, then using, managing and choosing to develop those attributes, skills and abilities, as they play the game, in order to ‘complete’ it.
Basically, RPG’s are all about user-directed character development, (above and beyond any abilities gained in general (basic) game-play) - if the game is not about this, as its central idea, then it’s not an RPG.
Biggest crock of bull in the entire essay. Don't get me wrong, it's full to the brim with crocks of bull. This is just the biggest one, and the source of most of the rest.
I won't touch JimProfit's post, not because he proved himself to be a moron, though he did, but because his idiotic trolling had nothing to do with the topic being discussed. You, on the other hand, Keill, have shown you have zero concept of what makes an RPG what it is, going so far as to claim the games that have DEFINED the RPG genre aren't RPGs at all.
Roleplaying Games have nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, pay close attention, NOTHING to do with how high you can willingly crank your strength stat as opposed to your proficiency in the Whoopyo@$$ skill. If that's all you want, there's a whole section of pen-and-paper RPers that even abuse that system that will be happy to have you. The rest of us call them "minmaxers," but I'm sure you'll find yourself right at home. After all, these people also have no appreciation for any story, as they only care about their glorious stats and how if they can take some liberties with this feat and this skill, then they can do this and do that much more damage and pwn whatever they want. Go on, go hang out with them, just don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.
The rest of us will be enjoying REAL roleplaying games, which include a well-developed story, character depth (and no, character depth means the quality of the character in terms of personality, history, behaviors, etcetera, not all of which must mandatorally be under the player's control, not how much control you have over where their stats go) and character interaction.
Sure, there's lots of great genres out there, and in truth, the only one I don't play is the sports genre, but RPGs are centered on the quality of the story and character depth and interaction, not on stats. And while some of your ideas are good, I have news for you. If all it's going to accomplish is defining RPGs as the fecal matter in which the fungus known as minmaxing flourishes, I hope your system never gets off the ground.
I have to admit that I was expecting an AWFUL lot more posts such as this one after the original post, and I'm extremely surprised it's taken this long for it to happen.
The FIRST thing you need to understand, however, is that I'm ONLY talking about COMPUTER-based RPG's, and for good reason, since by the way computer-gaming has gone, the basic games and GAME-PLAY they encompass has since CHANGED and EVOLVED, as I said in the post, and can differ HIGHLY from their 'offline' counterparts in many ways, or not, in the case if D&D.
When I said my idea/decisions/definition was CONTROVERSIAL, this was exactly what I meant, and why...
But I made it for an extremely good reason, which I explain in my post. The problem with the standard definition of 'Role-Playting-Game' is that it's FAR TOO BROAD, and therefore essentially unusable for modern day computer/console games. The reason for this, is that all of the elements you talk about above, can be implemented in many ways, some of which are INDEPENDENT of the BASIC GAME-PLAY, and therefore the actual style, and overall genre of the game.
In fact ALL of what you talk about above can be generally covered by a lot of established ADVENTURE games, which are not recognised as being RPG's at all, simply because of the basic game-play, which is the main problem...
And all this is a symptom of the computer game market maturing, and different genres splitting up based on their actual game-play. JUST LIKE MUSIC does. Unfortuantely, computer games are NOT DOING IT RIGHT. And this method of trying to create an over-arching genre of 'role-playing-game' IS NOT WORKING. Genre's HAVE to be pretty SPECIFIC in order to work, and the RPG genre at the minute is TRYING to work, but not doing so correctly.
So what I've done, is gone through nearly all of the RPG's I know of, and tried to find out what it is GAME-PLAY wise, that they offer above other types of game. And thats why I've come to the decisions I have.
If you don't agree with my idea, then thats fine, but please, at least try to offer an alternative solution that would work? Because the current system DOES NOT. I'm sorry - but I've HAD ENOUGH of finding what I would call ADVENTURE games, labelled as RPG's, and therfore offer a different style of gome-play that I want. _________________ Darren Tomlyn
Tune-writer / Fiddle-player
http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn
ADR Character: Level : 11 Class : Monk Race : Elf Element : Ice Alignment : Good
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:30 am Post subject:
I'm fully aware you're talking of console-based and computer-based games. However, you've entirely missed the point of my entire post. I'll sum it up by answering the last part of your post.
What does an RPG offer in terms of gameplay above other types? Character and plot depth. Yes, this can be found elsewhere, but in these other genres, you find the defining characteristics of THEIR genres emphasized over the story and characters, themselves, however well that may be done, while an RPG focuses on the characters and stories over the actual battle elements.
I'll use a couple games as an example. I would call Tomb Raider, for instance, a third-person shooter adventure with extremely mild RPG elements. Mass Effect, on the other hand, is an RPG with third person shooter elements. Why? Because one focuses on the shooting and adventure while the other one focuses on telling a story and interacting with the various NPCs, both on your team and throughout the universe it presents to the player.
Another example is Sonic the Hedgehog. Almost all the games in the series can generally be placed under Action/Adventure, but Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood is an RPG. Even though it has many of the elements that we've come to expect from the Sonic series, it focuses primarily on the story and characters over speeding through the levels, which is still present, albeit to a different degree from the other games in its series.
The core problem here is with your thesis, that the defining characteristic of an RPG is coded character stat development. Your thesis is inherently erroneous. Until you adjust it to embody the corrections necessary, you will continue to be disappointed with RPGs. The difference is not the battle systems or how a character does or doesn't "level up." The difference is where the creators of the game choose to put their focus. An RPG has its focus in story and characters. A shooter has its focus on pumping targets full of lead in a fast-paced setting. A horror game focuses on scaring you. A racer focuses on getting to the goal faster than others. A fighting game focuses on beating up other characters, controlled either by a friend or by the computer. An adventure game has its focus on fighting your way through a level.
Any of these genres can have characteristics of any other genre. Indeed, it can have many characteristics of any other genre. Mass Effect, for instance, has one of the simplest, smoothest TPS Squad combat I've ever experienced, many details of which I wish would find their way into games like Halo, while Perfect Dark and Bond are inarguably First-Person Shooters but still have very memorable characters. The Legend of Zelda unabashedly has many Adventure components; it's part of what has made the series such a success. It is, however, still an RPG because its focus is on the story and characters.
I offered no solution in my previous post because there is no inherent problem, at least not where you seem to think it may be. Under the First Amendment, you have the right to call any game whatever you want to call it, but that doesn't make it so. An RPG is an RPG, regardless of whether or not you would rather it be different from how it is.
By all means, if you think your system can bring a new experience to gamers, go for it. Just don't go around calling it an RPG, because it's not. _________________
nimast
While I agree that stats alone are not the only thing that makes a good RPG, you have to consider that you are one type of player. A good and truly balanced RPG system will take into account the different ways people want to play the game. I myself like the stories in RPGs, like you, but the story is not what makes it an RPG. Yes stories are important, and every RPG has one , but they do not need to be the sole focus of the game to fit it into the genre.
If you don't care about your damage and you want to keep grinding away through levels and quests that build the story up so that you eventually reveal your character's full history while simultaneously saving the kingdom from the Dragon God King, that's fine. But you also have to take into consideration that some people are minimally interested in the story and mostly interested in the way they play the game. This doesn't change the fact that it is an RPG.
When I play an RPG it's to feel like I'm somebody who is somehow more spectacular than me. When I log on to my mage in WoW (not any more, my accounts been dead since before Wrath of the Lich King) I love seeing the big numbers come up that say "5128" and takes away half of the creature's health. For this, all I need to worry about is the development of my character as far as stats are concerned.
And before anyone bites my head off, there is a story in WoW, and if you read all the lore it is fantastic.
My main point is that before my friend introduced me to the lore behind the game, about a year into my account, I had no clue there was an overlying story to the game, and there is certainly no "story" development as far as the actual personality of my gnome. That being said, I dare you to find someone who will tell you WoW is not an RPG.
Keill
I agree with some of the things you're saying, I disagree with others. One of the things that caught my attention was your description of same-thing-but-better as a game element.
[quote=KeillRandor]Quite simply, say if a character started off with a sword that does 10 damage, and then gains about 50 levels and winds up with a sword that has no other impact in the game, but to do 1000 damage – (especially if the amount of damage needed to kill an enemy has increased proportionately), then it would count as the-same-thing-but-better, since it hasn’t affected the game-play in the slightest…
Don’t get me wrong – EVERY RPG will suffer from this problem to a certain degree – there’s no way of escaping it. [/quote]
I have to say you're right about it, but as far as weapons go, there isn't much else to do, like you said. I mean a game where you never swap out your equipment would be boring, and nobody wants to exchange gear for a lower-quality item. I have a suggestion that may be able to help in a small way.
Now since I know you've played WoW, you know about the weapon skill in that game. A system could be greatly benefitted from making that skill system fluid with the ability to beoth increase and decrease. This would add two things (or more) to the game:
1) When someone switched to a different type of weapon they would have to "learn" it by using it.
2) Even when switching to a new weapon of the same type (sword to bigger sword) the skill level could be adjusted to add more realism.
You also interested me with your observations about character classes and the inherent limitations they put on a character. Now obviously a character sheet that gave you control over every single tiny miniscule attribute would work well, but it would be so complex and long to draw up, it wouldn't be plausible.
I was wondering if you'd considered a classless system? It would have the traditional elements of an RPG talent tree in that certain abilities require other abilities as prerequisites, but it offers a more open-ended platform for the player to branch off of.
As an example, there is no "rogue" class, just a human character. However if it suits that individual player they may choose to gather the sneak, hide, pickpocket, disarm traps (etc. etc.) talents. Essentially this would allow the character to be a "rogue" without forcing them to be a "rogue." It also adds the benefit of allowing the rogue to take a talent meant for another "class" and allowing even further customization. When I started playing RPGs, I was disappointed that there was no way for me to be a hybrid thief/mage. I found Icewind Dale, which lets you, but it penalizes you by doubling the XP needed to level just for trying to mix up your class a little.
And my last point is just an agreement about game content needing to be customizable. I would buy the original WoW, Burning Crusade, Wrath of the Lich King and a one year subscription tomorrow if they came out with a way to create or alter your spells. (Glyphs do not count.)
[Edit: Spelling and grammar mistakes througout and a line left in I meant to delete.] _________________
ADR Character: Level : 11 Class : Monk Race : Elf Element : Ice Alignment : Good
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:51 am Post subject:
You misunderstood me entirely, Arcane. It was not my preference of which I was speaking. Yes, the battle system in a game can add or take away a great deal to a game, but that's across any and every genre and is not a defining characteristic of RPGs. I've seen RPGs with all sorts of different types of battle systems. Mass Effect, which I mentioned earlier, has a real-time TPS/Squad battle system. Many have turn-based systems, often with some sort of alteration, such as Legend of Dragoon's timed combo system. I even played a game in which you gathered new moves by acquiring "tiles." You could then customize your moveset by dropping different tiles into five different slots. The further to the right the tile is placed among the five slots, the more powerful the effect, but the more Effort Points, represented by a vertical gauge on the left of the screen, it costs to use it. The amount of EP you get per turn increases for every person that joins your party and as you go up in level and you select a tile (or choose to wait so you can charge more EP without using it) by having your character walk over it in the little miniscreen. It was a very original style and I found it refreshing and innovative.
I'm getting off-topic, though. Yeah, some people like the gameplay. Yeah, game designers must take battle systems into consideration when designing a game. No, that does not make it a distinguishing point of an RPG. Yes, the story does have to be the primary focus, along with character interaction, for it to be an RPG. MMORPGs are often a different matter, focusing more on inter-player traits and dungeon diving, though many still have rich storylines. Thus, while they certainly are the children of RPGs, they are for the most part a genre of their own. Exceptions exist, such as the story-rich RF Online and Shin Tensei Megami - Imagine, but for the most part, story, however rich, takes a back seat to other details in an MMO, and thus is not a true RPG.
What your preference seems to be is more in the lines of an Action/Adventure game rather than a true RPG, regardless of whether or not the outlet you find for that is, itself, one or the other.
On your topic of a classless development, I've been working on the layout of such a system for a MUD. What we've come up with so far is much like what you're asking. I'll try to give a brief summary here.
You start with a character. Nothing but a base race and some stats. As you use that character, however you use it enforces development along those lines. The more hits the character takes, the higher its defense and hit points. The more it successfully avoids attacks, the better its dodge skills become. When you fight with a sword, your sword skills improve.
Very simple, but not really enough, so we added skill trees to this, and how these skill trees work have nothing to do with your level, in fact, they go off an entirely different system. Your Character Level only affects your base stats, as well as some HP and MP gain. Every base skill, however, is the beginning of a larger skill tree, represented by mastery percentages.
Once you get your Sword skill up to 50%, for instance, you gain an additional skill, say, Swordmastery, which increases the damage you do with a sword in addition to the bonuses gained from Sword. As you continue to use your sword, both continue to raise, and you'll eventually get Second Attack (allowing two attacks per round), Third Attack (allows three attacks per round and increases the chance of Second Attack working), and so on, each new skill depending on the percentage of mastery of the skills before it.
So long as you're willing to train, you can have any number of abilities and combinations thereof. If a primarily physical fighter decides he or she needs some magical healing to help them stay in battle longer, they can work on their Cure spells, and while they may start with the most basic of them, they'll gradually unlock higher ones. Base skill trees can even unlock other skill trees once they've been raised enough. For instance, mastering Cure Minor, Cure Light and getting Cure Medium to 50% can unlock the Status Healing tree.
After some discussion, we decided against placing a maximum cap on the number of skills a player can gain, because we decided if anyone were to put enough dedication in to get all that experience, they deserve it. _________________
I see what you mean and I accept your point. I as arguing from the point the Keill had mentioned MMORPGs a few times in his post. If you class it as it's own genre instead of a subgenre, I definitely agree with your point of view. (By the way how awesome was Legend of the Dragoons?) However if you take the RPG genre as a whole, I don't think the story necessarily has to be the driving force, so much as the character's stat- and talent-based development. But like I said, I definitely see your side now, so this is just me being childish and stating my opinion again. I fully acknowledge how silly that is to admit, but hey, I already typed it all.
I was going to post some stuff asking about your game, but I'll move it to PM to keep this thread neat. _________________
ADR Character: Level : 11 Class : Monk Race : Elf Element : Ice Alignment : Good
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:46 am Post subject:
I do understand your viewpoint, and because many RPGs share nearly identical battle systems and character stat systems, it can be easy to consider it a primary characteristic of the genre. However, it is not a constant characteristic, while story focus and character interaction is. Games like Megaman Battle Network and Starforce are RPGs, but they utilize no turn-based system, no stats, no levels. Instead, they focus on story and character interaction.
I understand we're no longer arguing the matter, but I thought it'd only be polite if I responded to the points you raised. _________________
You know what? I just couldn't get through this. The writing is stale and incredibly unattractive to a reader. There is no real life, no vigor in the writing. This may be why he is having difficulty with RPG's, as he seems to lack the artistry of a storyteller. Furthermore, he is analyzing a topic in which "Game" is a factor. Disagree with me if you wish, but it is my honest opinion that we should not analyze any aspect of a game, especially if it is an RPG. These games should be about having fun, blending elements of gameplay and storytelling in an effort not to engross, but simply to let the player have fun. Do I find story important? Yes. But I also recognize that people can't always focus on the "tense and engaging" politically verbose yet plot-necessary dialogue scenes. This is why you need to balance out plot with plain dicking around. Furthermore, stories need to be flexible, especially in truly free-form RPG's. You can't predict everything that a player will do, and on of the most attractive things about RPG's is in using your character to have an impact on the world. Sure, you can pass a lot of hours questing and hacking apart monsters for those special items or experience points. But I feel that the true lifeblood of an RPG - especially those which are textbased, as they allow for more imaginitive interaction - is in having an impact on the game world, knowing that you as a player can change the nature or even the end result of a story. That's the best part of any RPG.
ADR Character: Level : 11 Class : Monk Race : Elf Element : Ice Alignment : Good
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:04 am Post subject:
You are speaking, Threadweaver, of only one type of RPG, the Open-Ended RPG, but this is not globally accurate. The majority of RPGs, even today, focus on telling a story that the player is simply playing through. Yes, there are some minor choices within, but few are actually open-ended. This, like battle systems, is merely one facet that keeps all RPGs from simply being clones of one another, but is not a defining factor of RPGs, itself. _________________
ADR Character: Level : 11 Class : Monk Race : Elf Element : Ice Alignment : Good
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:29 am Post subject:
Yes, but what we're discussing here is that he believes things that he's suggesting would better RPGs as a whole by separating them from things he doesn't think should count as RPGs based on an erroneous definition. _________________
Yes, but what we're discussing here is that he believes things that he's suggesting would better RPGs as a whole by separating them from things he doesn't think should count as RPGs based on an erroneous definition.
Yep. Exactly that.
The reason for that, is because the ONE THING, I consider to make modern RPG computer/comsole games what they are - (user-directed character development ABOVE and BEYOND the basic game-play, as their/one of their MAIN features, (which, trust me, is already a watery line in the sand between recognised adventure games and most RPG's - I'm just solidifying it with my post, because I feel it needs to be done, and explaining why) - (and notice the word 'stats' here is absent)) - has SO MUCH MORE ROOM FOR GROWTH in games, it's rediculous.
Whether you agree with it or not, the fact is, is that most RPG's released in the past 5-8 years have included this one feature, whereas most games labelled as 'adventure games' have not. Yes, unfortunately some games have been released without it that have been called RPG's, but thats the reason I wrote this in the first place, becuase I don't like it.
Now, as I said in my post, the problem is this: does this partular genre of game I'm talking about deserve to become the RPG, or should it be a completely 'new' genre of it's own?
Because of the way gaming has gone I recommend sticking with RPG. Yes, it may annoy a lot of people, but because thats the way the gaming world is moving anyway, it will only help ease confusion, speed things up, and help people make the sort of games they COULD make, if they truely understood and used this particular game mechanic to it's full potential - because trust me, we've only scratched the surface of it so far....
Like I said, the current definition of RPG that you're talking about no longer means as much as it needs to as far as an actual 'genre' is concerned - i.e. since we're talking about games, and the stuff you're talking about isn't always related to the BASIC game-play - it really DOES NOT HELP. _________________ Darren Tomlyn
Tune-writer / Fiddle-player
http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn
ADR Character: Level : 11 Class : Monk Race : Elf Element : Ice Alignment : Good
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:08 pm Post subject:
Apparently, the only thing you remotely consider RPGs are what a friend of mine calls "Western" RPGs, inspired heavily by pen and paper RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons. I prefer to call these OERPGs, or Open-Ended Role-Playing Games. Yes, these are role-playing games, but they are just one facet of the genre, not the defining characteristic thereof. Just because they're becoming more popular - mostly because computers have only recently been able to handle the depth and such that OEs require - does not suddenly mean that it's the only kind of RPGs out there. That conclusion is as erroneous as it is moronic and it shows how little you know about the genre you are attempting to dictate to the world. _________________
Apparently, the only thing you remotely consider RPGs are what a friend of mine calls "Western" RPGs, inspired heavily by pen and paper RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons. I prefer to call these OERPGs, or Open-Ended Role-Playing Games. Yes, these are role-playing games, but they are just one facet of the genre, not the defining characteristic thereof. Just because they're becoming more popular - mostly because computers have only recently been able to handle the depth and such that OEs require - does not suddenly mean that it's the only kind of RPGs out there. That conclusion is as erroneous as it is moronic and it shows how little you know about the genre you are attempting to dictate to the world.
Well thats just it - I've played a LOT pf computer games that you would consider RPG's - unfortuantely not all of them can be classed as the same genre, simply because the GAME-PLAY was too different. And THAT's the problem I have with this matter. If I buy a game from a genre I should have a good idea of what style of game-play it has etc.. Unfortunately for RPG's at this time, the current definition doesn't really help with that.
For instance I DON'T really like Bethesda's Morrowind. Why? because I find the game-play boring and repetitive. But thats because the BASIC game-play is similar to an adventure game, and I have to choose HOW TO PLAY in order to progress. Now, Bethesda's Morrowind is actually very similar in game-play mechanics to a lot of Eastern 'RPG's', (including such games like most of the final fantasy series etc. - (I haven't played any of the latest ones, so can't talk about those)) - in that the actual character development is 'on rails' depending on how you play the game.
The problem with that, is HOW you play the game, is very much similar to some adventure games. And if you HID all the figures/stats etc., then there would be no basic game-play difference at all.
The reason I don't like it, is because I like game-play, (over plot etc.), and especially game-play development, that I can actually have some influence and control over. The user-directed character development allows for this, whereas the system used in Morrowind/Early Final Fantasy games etc. don't really work that way. Yes, they tried to improve that a little with Oblivion - (adding in the stats you can change) - but it, again, didn't change the basic game-play enough and I found it boring and repetitive, just like Morrowind.
Like I said, GAMES, are all about GAME-PLAY, just like music is about how things sound. Evey genre of game out there has some basic game-play mechanics and style associated with it. The trick was finding out what mechanics RPG's usually have, and thats what I did.
The main problem with this, is trying to get people to focus on the basic game-play and game-play mechanics, and not the content built on top of it. Now, yes, the problem with even my definition of an RPG, is still very broad, but it's the ONLY game-play mechanic I've can think of that if a game has, then it's automatically accepted as an RPG. NO OTHER GAME-PLAY SYSTEM OR MECHANIC WORKS IN THIS FASHION (AFAICT). Like I said, it's the curse of the adventure game - if that genre didn't exist, then there would only BE RPG's, (though there would need to be sub-classes), and there would be no confusion at all...
The problem, is that this game-mechanic I'm talking about is SO POWERFUL, and literally game-changing, that there should be no-way that it can NOT be considered a genre by itself. Yes, it will also be a broad genre, since it's above and beyond the basic game-play, (and will therefore involve other genres' game-play mechanics aswell - (like Deus-Ex did to First-person-shooters)), but it's specific enough to get away with it. The problem with the current definition of 'RPG' is that it's NOT.
So, if you think you know better, then fine, and then perhaps you can tell me what the main difference is in GAME-PLAY terms/mechanics between adventure games and RPG's?
I have to admit that it seems very hard for people to look into the fundamentals of a computer game, and examine the core game-play mechanics, but I actually automatically analyse any and every game I play - I can't help it.
Perhaps it's because I'm a musician and composer, and through doing the same thing with music, again, automatically - (since I understand the basic systems and mechanics (theory) underpinning (western, at least) music too)) - I find it logical to do the same thing with computer games? _________________ Darren Tomlyn
Tune-writer / Fiddle-player
http://www.myspace.com/darrentomlyn
ADR Character: Level : 11 Class : Monk Race : Elf Element : Ice Alignment : Good
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:27 am Post subject:
Okay, that response was so completely bogged down with errors, mistakes, misrepresentations and just plain general idiocy that I'm going to have to quote the whole thing and address it one piece at a time just to make sure I don't miss anything.
KeillRandor wrote:
Well thats just it - I've played a LOT pf computer games that you would consider RPG's - unfortuantely not all of them can be classed as the same genre, simply because the GAME-PLAY was too different. And THAT's the problem I have with this matter. If I buy a game from a genre I should have a good idea of what style of game-play it has etc.. Unfortunately for RPG's at this time, the current definition doesn't really help with that.
Every game that I would consider an RPG? Guess what. Every game I would consider an RPG IS an RPG, because it fits the definition of an RPG. Your focus on gameplay as the deciding factor is blinding you to anything and everything anybody else remotely tries to tell you to the contrary. Because an RPG focuses on STORY and CHARACTER DEPTH, and not a specific method of gameplay allows it to utilize any number of flexible methods of interface for the game, itself. There is no rule saying all RPGs must have random turn-based battles with four options of Attack, Special, Items and Run. The purpose of an RPG is to tell a story. How the makers choose to let you interact with it is up to them. If you don't want to buy a game for the story, then let me give you a tip. DON'T BUY ROLE-PLAYING GAMES!!!
Quote:
For instance I DON'T really like Bethesda's Morrowind. Why? because I find the game-play boring and repetitive. But thats because the BASIC game-play is similar to an adventure game, and I have to choose HOW TO PLAY in order to progress. Now, Bethesda's Morrowind is actually very similar in game-play mechanics to a lot of Eastern 'RPG's', (including such games like most of the final fantasy series etc. - (I haven't played any of the latest ones, so can't talk about those)) - in that the actual character development is 'on rails' depending on how you play the game.
Okay, you completely blew any faint wisp of credibility you might have still had when you actually said that Morrowind and Final Fantasy play the same way. That's all that needs to be said there. Though if you dislike having choices in how you can deal with a situation, maybe you should take a second look on whether or not you want to continue with life in general.
Quote:
The problem with that, is HOW you play the game, is very much similar to some adventure games. And if you HID all the figures/stats etc., then there would be no basic game-play difference at all.
You mean, except for that one has very little character interaction and the other depends on it. Of course that's what you mean. Because you actually have two ounces of brain matter, right? Or at least a working pair of ears.
Quote:
The reason I don't like it, is because I like game-play, (over plot etc.), and especially game-play development, that I can actually have some influence and control over. The user-directed character development allows for this, whereas the system used in Morrowind/Early Final Fantasy games etc. don't really work that way. Yes, they tried to improve that a little with Oblivion - (adding in the stats you can change) - but it, again, didn't change the basic game-play enough and I found it boring and repetitive, just like Morrowind.
Then go play fantasy football. You can customize your entire team that way. Seriously, if you don't want anything frivolous like an epic story and memorable characters to interfere with your mindless slaughtering of equally mindless unnamed enemies, then you have no business playing RPGs, anyway. Might I recommend Duke Nukem? He's moronically simplistic enough for you, I would think.
Quote:
Like I said, GAMES, are all about GAME-PLAY, just like music is about how things sound. Evey genre of game out there has some basic game-play mechanics and style associated with it. The trick was finding out what mechanics RPG's usually have, and thats what I did.
No, that's not what you did. What you did was just make one gigantic, idiotic @$$ out of yourself, because you completely missed the point of games as a whole, but you can't seem to hear us telling you that because you're too busy screaming that we're wrong and we just don't understand you.
Quote:
The main problem with this, is trying to get people to focus on the basic game-play and game-play mechanics, and not the content built on top of it.
Yes, because we all know the real point of a game is to judge it based on its number of random encounters and how big a hole we can make in an enemy with whatever we've developed, not on its own merit and on what it's trying to accomplish.
Quote:
Now, yes, the problem with even my definition of an RPG, is still very broad,
No, the problem with your definition of an RPG is that it's completely WRONG, not that it simply fails to specify what you want it to, despite your epic genius.
Quote:
but it's the ONLY game-play mechanic I've can think of that if a game has, then it's automatically accepted as an RPG. NO OTHER GAME-PLAY SYSTEM OR MECHANIC WORKS IN THIS FASHION (AFAICT).
No, it's not AFAICT, as there's no such thing. It's not even "a fact," as a fact is a truth that can be verified and withstands the tests of said verification. Yours does not. There are games that have stats that are not RPGs and there are a ton of RPGs that don't have stats. Your hypothesis is therefore proven incorrect. A true scientific mind would recognize that and complete the loop of the scientific process by returning to the beginning, revising their hypothesis and starting over, instead of shouting at everyone, "ITS AFAICT!!! ITS AFAICT!!! HOW DARE YOU DOUBT MY GREATNESS!? CAN'T YOU SEE ITS AFAICT???"
Quote:
Like I said, it's the curse of the adventure game - if that genre didn't exist, then there would only BE RPG's, (though there would need to be sub-classes), and there would be no confusion at all...
Yes, and if there were no sports, shooters, racers or puzzle games, then there really wouldn't ever be any confusion. Everyone would know that a given game is an RPG simply because there's nothing else out there. Yes, a horrible, horrible curse, you're completely right.
Quote:
The problem, is that this game-mechanic I'm talking about is SO POWERFUL, and literally game-changing, that there should be no-way that it can NOT be considered a genre by itself. Yes, it will also be a broad genre, since it's above and beyond the basic game-play, (and will therefore involve other genres' game-play mechanics aswell - (like Deus-Ex did to First-person-shooters)), but it's specific enough to get away with it. The problem with the current definition of 'RPG' is that it's NOT.
Yes, because you're so incredible and innovative that you can change the face of the world. Get this through your head. The definition you use to define an RPG is NOT the same one the rest of the world uses. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll be able to sleep at night without worrying about what the world of video games is coming to.
Quote:
So, if you think you know better, then fine, and then perhaps you can tell me what the main difference is in GAME-PLAY terms/mechanics between adventure games and RPG's?
Certainly. As I said, in an adventure game, you may or may not have memorable characters and/or an epic storyline, but the game will be largely the same without them. They're icing on the cake. An RPG, on the other hand, depends on them to live and breathe. It is crucial to even the gameplay and even getting from one stage to the next. In addition, an adventure game has only a few acceptable styles of general gameplay available to it, while an RPG can utilize almost any style of gameplay without changing its actual purpose and genre.
Quote:
I have to admit that it seems very hard for people to look into the fundamentals of a computer game, and examine the core game-play mechanics, but I actually automatically analyse any and every game I play - I can't help it.
Good for you. Just because the rest of us don't seem to, however, neither means we don't nor that it's very hard for us to do. It simply means WE AREN'T AS ANAL AND STUCK UP ABOUT IT AS YOU ARE!!!
Quote:
Perhaps it's because I'm a musician and composer, and through doing the same thing with music, again, automatically - (since I understand the basic systems and mechanics (theory) underpinning (western, at least) music too)) - I find it logical to do the same thing with computer games?
Yes, yes, you're totally right ... You're such an incredible genius, talented beyond the capability for comprehension of us mere mortals, your thinking just goes light years ahead of ours. Oh, you're so smart! You're so cool! You're such a friggin' Einstein! Do yourself a favor. Get over yourself and consider for a moment, just for the slightest moment, that it's not the rest of the world that isn't gifted enough to follow your "FAICTS" and reach the same inevitable conclusion, but that you might possibly, just possibly, be wrong. _________________
ADR Character: Level : 3 Class : Druid Race : Elf Element : Fire Alignment : Evil
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:27 am Post subject:
Ok, while I know I can't possibly word my responses as elegantly (and simultaneously angrily) as Ninmast's, I've stood by and read this load of steaming manure long enough, and now I'm going to do my best to shovel it out.
First of all, let me make this painstakingly simple so that even someone with a cranial cavity as small as yours can comprehend it. An RPG is a ROLE PLAYING GAME. It is a game in which you PLAY a ROLE. Specifically, it is a game in which you play the role of a character or characters. Going off of this simple concept it's easy to prove Ninmast's point. You see, the very purest form of RPG is all around us, right here, on this forum. Every single roleplay here is in fact also a role playing game, as we are role playing in a game-like fashion. Our rps are simple, writing an action and writing a response, an RPG in purest form without graphics, controllers, button combos, targeting reticles, or stats. Now's the part where you, in your infinite wisdom, say "But these aren't REAL RPGs. There are no stats, no equiptment, no random battles!" EXACTLY. There aren't any of these things, but, despite this, they are, in fact, RPGS. It says so right in the name. These things were around before DnD even, these were the first RPGs. You want to know how they can be RPGs without any of that other stuff? It's because none of that other stuff really matters. All that matters in an RPG, the entire defining force behind it, the entire reason for playing, is the STORY and the CHARACTERS. They are the true driving force of any RPG, and you can have an RPG without anything else BUT the story and characters, and still have it be a fun and enjoyable game, as is exemplified here.
This is also, as Ninmast has already made clear but you seem incapable of understanding, what seperates adventure games from RPGs. Case in point: Legend of Zelda. Many argue that Legend of Zelda is an action/adventure game and not an RPG, because it lacks stat building. However, it is plainly an RPG because you don't play it for the action. You play Legend of Zelda not for the mindless slaughtering of enemies to reach and kill a boss, but to advance the story, to see Link and his allies evolve as characters, to discover new places and find the hidden secrets of his world, and to see how he'll defeat the villain. You won't find a single person who plays that game solely to reach the next level. That's what makes it an RPG.
Now take Sonic and the Secret Rings, for example. Much of the game is grinding levels and trying unlock all of the upgrades and abilities so that Sonic is as powerful as he can be. However, that does not make it an rpg. Sonic does not evolve as a character, the story is fairly shallow in general, and you don't play to explore new places or see what comes next in the storyline but to beat the level and try to move on to the next, even cooler level. Don't get me wrong, I love Sonic games, especially this one, but I love it for exactly that reason: because it's fun to try to beat the levels and get to the next ones. I don't play primarily for the story but for the gameplay. Thus, despite its stats and other rpg elements, Sonic and the Secret Rings falls under the adventure/platformer category.
To summarize and make my point explicitly clear, the difference between RPGs and adventure games is this: you play an RPG for the story, to see what comes next in the storyline, to watch the characters develop and to see how the opposition is finally defeated, while you play an action or adventure game to reach the next level, to make your character the strongest, to blow up the baddies for the sake of blowing up the baddies and to beat the game.
Also, you might note that there is a very simple law of truths you may wish to consult in this scenario, and it is this: if your opinion differs from the opinions of everyone else, you are most likely wrong. I suggest you take this to heart.
And by the way, just in case Ninmast wasn't clear enough, Final Fantasy and Morrowind are NOTHING like each other, not only in character interaction but just by the fact that Final Fantasy is TURN BASED and Morrowind is REAL TIME. That alone automatically puts them in two completely different sub-genres. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that you've already proven your idiocy a thousand times over in this topic alone, I would be amazed that someone who seems to put so much stock in game play would miss this GLARINGLY OBVIOUS FACT. _________________
Much love to cdawgg for the epic sig and avy!
Kill Record: 1 (Mr.Bigglesworth90)
Loss Record: 0
Draw Record: 3 (Fubuki, Filth, KazeTanade)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
