Over the years many players and game developers have argued their perspectives over what an RPG (role playing game) is.
I will be writing an article in the near future that shall, hopefully, bridge the gap between players and developers.
This article will cover the many successes and failures in many games including Morrowind, and Baldur's Gate.
Please reply to me with your personal opinions on this subject.
ID:190746
 Dec 14 2002, 12:39 pm
|
|
|
Dec 14 2002, 12:53 pm
|
|
Metallica
 |
I would have to say that a Role Playing Game is any game in which you assume the Role of another person in a fantasy world. But that's pretty broad, so I dont' really know. Most programmers think that Turn Based combat games like FFX are what they consider RPG'S. But then again, wasn't A Link To The Past an RPG?
|
yes, this is exactly my point..
We as the gaming community in a whole have to come to an agreement of some sort to point at a game and say This is an RPG and have everyone else agree. We all must define terms everyone who plays games can agree upon. So far this has not been done. | |
With some games, it's very easy to tell. Like if you played Gran Turismo games, you can say without any doubt that it is definitey not an RPG. But by that same token, couldn't games like Madden2002 be considered RPG's because you assume the role of someone else? I've always thought of Zelda as an RPG, but some calle it an Adventure game. Well, aren't most Adventure games Role Playing? Games like Megal Gear Solid 1&2 are Role Playing games, and I think you all will agree with me. Deus Ex is Role Playing, but not by most RPG definitions. Most people and programmers think that to be an rpg it has to be like baulders gate, or morrowind, or based loosely off of d&d in some way.
| |
Saying that an RPG is a game where you assume the role of a character is very broad. Most games like Zelda, or Metal Gear are considered action/adventure games. In Half-Life you play the role of a character, but it's an action game of the first person shooter kind. In Tony Hawk's Por Skater games, you play the role of a skateboarder, but I wouldn't call them RPGs, they are action games. In Mario games, you play the role of Mario, but they're action/platform games.
In Gran Turismo, you play the role of a driver. You don't have a name, but time progresses, you earn money, and get better licenses. In Zelda, you kill monsters and get items. I don't consider either of those games RPGs. In terms of console games, RPGs are typically games where your characters develop by experience. They usually consist of fighting enemies, getting stronger, fighting harder enemies, getting even stronger, then beating the game. I don't get why people compare Final Fantasy to games like Baldur's Gate. | |
Do you gain levels and such in FFX? How can that be an RPG then? You don't gain Experience (i think you get ap or something) and you don't have levels, so is FFX really an RPG? Also, Harvest Moon is an rpg, so what do you say to that?
| |
because its his personal view of what an RPG is.
This gap is what Im talking about, There must be a set category made so these arguments dont happen. But until that time comes, these are opinions.. there is no right or wrong in what an RPG is. | |
There seems to be z few ways of looking at it. The most common two are "console RPGs are true RPGs" and "PC RPGs are true RPGs." I think we all have to agree to disagree. I'll say puh-tae-toe, you say poe-tah-toe. Then there are the people that are too ignorant to comprehend this.
| |
OneFishDown wrote:
I don't get why people compare Final Fantasy to games like Baldur's Gate. Well, Baldur's Gate is based on D&D. Since the first RPGs were actually pen-and-paper games, most notably D&D, I think this qualifies Baldur's Gate as an RPG. However, I consider Final Fantasy to be an RPG too. It seems that medieval settings have come to be synonymous with RPGs in most people's minds. However, Fallout is still considered to be an RPG. I don't think there will ever really be a definition set in stone. | |
I think PC "RPGs" vary in comparison just as the console "RPGs" do.
The trick is, to make suitable categories for all these types to fall Under. | |
There are two well grounded and entrenched sides to this debate...
1) An RPG is a game in which you play as a character involved in a story (loose or otherwise) in which you must travel the game world, killing monsters to gain experience and level up in order to defeat successively tougher bosses on the path to defeating the final boss to win the game... 2) An RPG is just that... A Role Playing Game... You create a role for yourself, and play the game as that character...doing what that character would do... Basically nothing but playing pretend and acting out a role... Role Playing... Both are essentially correct... In both, you are playing a role... In the first, that role has been laid out for you, in the second, you design and push the role along... So, I don't think we can ever lock it down to one or the other... | |
So now you want us to think alike? How does that thing go again? Something along the lines of "Yes mine commendant."
-Sariat | |
Mein ...
I strangly doubt he means it that far, but everyone wants to be popular and have everyon agree with them. Dareb seems to of found this person in "Metallica" | |
No, just a like-minded individual.
Just because he has the same mental wavelength as me doesnt mean we'll agree, in fact we could have complete arguments with eachother that nobody else would understand. | |
Dareb wrote:
I think PC "RPGs" vary in comparison just as the console "RPGs" do. Fair enough. Though this is a somewhat different project than the one you originally outlined, at least if I read it right. Where initially you wanted to define "RPG" in a way that could be used to clearly, objectively state "This is an RPG; that isn't", now your project is more of a taxonomy: "This is subspecies X of the RPG genre; that is a combination of subspecies Y and Z of the RPG genre, with a strong element of subspecies Q of the Action genre." And if that is the way you're thinking now, then that's probably a good thing, because I think the latter is a much more useful way of approaching the problem -- I'm not enough of an optimist to think that every game can be completely described by such a system, but the effort is worthwhile nonetheless. I'll give you an analogy: in general, I like New Wave music because I like music that's catchy and energetic. But if I look at someone's list of New Wave groups, I'll find lots of groups that are neither catchy nor energetic. I could choose to say "These groups are not the true New Wave!" Or I could instead say "These groups fall into the 'brooding/anemic' subcategory of New Wave." The latter approach is probably the better one, unless I want to set myself up for endless and mostly pointless debates -- and in this case, they'd be debates with people who know much more about music than myself. I seem to remember that mudconnector.com has a long list of descriptors that can be applied to a game; I think it was on their search page. You might find it useful for ideas. | |
Thrakkiss wrote:
There are quite a few things that are impossible. Yes, like proving some people wrong =P | |