Agreement: Out of character exploration is too easy. The world maps, mob descriptions etc. All that is explorable is described in too much detail on the first encounter (or even before that). There should be a lot of experience gathering and learning going while you are exploring the world around you.
Disagreement: Character/basic world laws should be described in detail. As such, you are playing a person that was born in the world, so basic laws should be available without effort (stat descriptions are one example. I hate character creation without knowing what I am influencing with my choices).
The main problem for me is the ready made conflicts that are the starting point of the vast majority of games today. Since you are starting out as the hero already (or chosen one ... whatever the devs picked), many of the choices are determined at character creation and you cannot do anything about it. What I want to say is this:
At start of game you should have complete information about each step of character creation. With complete I mean the backstory in case you are required to pick a faction (f.e. Rift has this completely backwards since you pick a faction as the first step but know NOTHING about your choice except the good/evil distinction). I want a game where you start as a commoner in your chosen race and pick a class after some learning of the world (I liked Ragnarok Online style of class/job setup).
(as usual I cannot put my thoughts into a coherent statement in words)
When the first Diablo came out it was just labeled "action", not sure where they got the RPG part from. Elder scrolls: Daggerfall where at about the same time seen as an action RPG.
The problem is that people slap the RPG thing on almost any kind of game today, before it had to do with interaction with npc/players or that it was based on a pen and paper RPG. Just killing stuff for loot does not a RPG make, or Doom would be a RPG as well.
Witcher is indeed a RPG though.
Eh, Diablo had the same core traits as the preceding 35+ years of videogame RPGs. Why is it even a question whether it's an RPG?
That is a discussion that goes back to table-top games.
Some players them like tacitcal combat games, putting very little (or none at all) focus on role-playing, imersing, lore, game world, etc - just going through combat encounters, with occasional puzzle and having fun playing combat scenarios and rolling a dice.
Other group players played same games - but were putting more emphasis on building stories, worlds, acting, pretending to make decisions based on "what would Old Bearded Dwarf Rollo do in this situation" instead "what I want to do in this situation" with dice-rolling and stats being only a part or addition to a game rather than being what this is about.
Both of those groups diffrently defined what "RPG" stands for. For first group RPG was basically "stats, combat and character progression - similar to card or strategy games but with characters instead of units or figures" and for second group RPG was "interactive storytelling with listeners as sort-of-actors, with pre-set rules and stats that made interactive parts possible do play and decide".
Same kind of "rift" happened in video gaming. Players that have similar preferences to "table top first group" consider all games are about progressively making video game character stronger through increasing it's statistics and amassing combat equipment as RPG.
Such players would also consider games like Jagged Alliance, Fallout Tactics, Xcom, Monster Hunter, Dungeon&Figher Online or Diablo as RPG games.
Where players that have similar preferences to "table top second group" consider video games as RPG only when a game is about building "consistant immersive experience in which player can pretend to be an fictionary character in fictionary beliveable world in which combat, story, world and lore are carefully balanced".
Such players would restrict RPG label to lesser number of games and put this label mainly to such games like: Fallouts, The Witchers, Baldurs Gates, Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines, The Elder Scrolls, etc
This discussion was on-going for last 30 years, but it was very marginal because RPG term was much less known, games labelled as "RPG" was much smaller in number and statistics and xp systems usage in gaming was smaller. (althrough it always did existed, also in shooter, platofrm or strategy games).
Now when majority of games are labelled as "RPG" it is kinda obvious why discussion is getting heated again and I doubt it will end until new genre names/labels will emerge and divide diffrent "sub-types" of " video game RPGs" into separate genres.
Other factors like i.e. average gamer getting more experienced in video gaming - also contribute to this.
Actually it already started - games like Grand Theft Auto or Assasin Creed could easily be called "RPG" in by wide inclusive definition of it - they certainly have character progession, they have xp systems, story, etc yet companies making them don't do it.
20 years from now "RPG" will be either legacy term or it's definition and usage will be much narrower and used towards much smaller number of video games.
Among other things that explain why mmoRPGs are in the shitter, i'd like to stand out one that it's not usually commented: Players are provided with too much information and data.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I think it would be much more interesting if the players just got the information the avatar is able to perceive, so players would be constantly guessing. It would put the RPG back in the frontline and the gaming experience in terms of player/player interaction and emerging gameplay would be far more enriching and satisfactory, making the game deep and viable on the long run, instead of the cheap short-termish thrills we have today.
You're definitely correct (at least from an immersion perspective), but the problem happens before you even make a character.
Everyone wants to know all the details of a game before they buy it (which is understandable, because noone wants to pay for crap). However, what this often translates into is high expectations which, while based in reality (the information provided) gets multiplied by expectations that were never actually mentioned. I.E. 'This class will get a bunch of new skills', then some players think 'oh I'm betting there will be 100s of skills', and when there are only 90 they feel let down.
In-game, this often translates into things like DPS meters. One of the things I really hate in MMOs. There is waaay too much focus on min-maxing stats, and not on actual gameplay. There are a select few games that try and break this norm, but they are still very much the minority.
When the first Diablo came out it was just labeled "action", not sure where they got the RPG part from. Elder scrolls: Daggerfall where at about the same time seen as an action RPG.
The problem is that people slap the RPG thing on almost any kind of game today, before it had to do with interaction with npc/players or that it was based on a pen and paper RPG. Just killing stuff for loot does not a RPG make, or Doom would be a RPG as well.
Witcher is indeed a RPG though.
That's because few games are that black & white these days. In the olden days genres were much more clearly defined, because the games were a lot simpler. Mario was a platformer, duck hunt was a shooter, etc. There was only so much data people could use to create a game, and thus games had a fairly limited amount of content in them. What made up for this was the difficulty many of these games had, which led to replayability, and spending longer amounts of time trying to beat the same content.
These days games are a blend of a bunch of different 'labels'. The labels they are given are a rough guideline to what is the 'dominant' gameplay type. Are you mostly acting out a character through a narrative? RPG. Are you mostly shooting things? Shooter. Are you mostly racing vehicles? Racing game.
Problems is, games evolve. Look at adventure games, for example. Take secret of monkey island. You are playing out a character through a narrative, but doing so through fairly unique puzzle mechanics. As such it's no longer an RPG, but an 'adventure game'. Fast forward to today, and we have MOBAs. Part lobby game, part MMO, part RPG, some (smite) even part FPS.
That's the problem w/ labels. We will always have them, because it's part of how people think. We compartmentalize, we label, we categorize. However it's never perfect. Labels may give us a vague understanding of what we're looking at, but never the whole picture. And they never will.
- Think about this for a second. We have a whole category of games called 'party games'. What does that tell you about the actual gameplay? Not a damned thing. It just conveys that they will be oriented towards having fun with a group of friends.
That is a discussion that goes back to table-top games.
Some players them like tacitcal combat games, putting very little (or none at all) focus on role-playing, imersing, lore, game world, etc - just going through combat encounters, with occasional puzzle and having fun playing combat scenarios and rolling a dice.
Other group players played same games - but were putting more emphasis on building stories, worlds, acting, pretending to make decisions based on "what would Old Bearded Dwarf Rollo do in this situation" instead "what I want to do in this situation" with dice-rolling and stats being only a part or addition to a game rather than being what this is about.
Both of those groups diffrently defined what "RPG" stands for. For first group RPG was basically "stats, combat and character progression - similar to card or strategy games but with characters instead of units or figures" and for second group RPG was "interactive storytelling with listeners as sort-of-actors, with pre-set rules and stats that made interactive parts possible do play and decide".
Same kind of "rift" happened in video gaming. Players that have similar preferences to "table top first group" consider all games are about progressively making video game character stronger through increasing it's statistics and amassing combat equipment as RPG.
Such players would also consider games like Jagged Alliance, Fallout Tactics, Xcom, Monster Hunter, Dungeon&Figher Online or Diablo as RPG games.
Where players that have similar preferences to "table top second group" consider video games as RPG only when a game is about building "consistant immersive experience in which player can pretend to be an fictionary character in fictionary beliveable world in which combat, story, world and lore are carefully balanced".
Such players would restrict RPG label to lesser number of games and put this label mainly to such games like: Fallouts, The Witchers, Baldurs Gates, Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines, The Elder Scrolls, etc
This discussion was on-going for last 30 years, but it was very marginal because RPG term was much less known, games labelled as "RPG" was much smaller in number and statistics and xp systems usage in gaming was smaller. (althrough it always did existed, also in shooter, platofrm or strategy games).
Now when majority of games are labelled as "RPG" it is kinda obvious why discussion is getting heated again and I doubt it will end until new genre names/labels will emerge and divide diffrent "sub-types" of " video game RPGs" into separate genres.
Other factors like i.e. average gamer getting more experienced in video gaming - also contribute to this.
Actually it already started - games like Grand Theft Auto or Assasin Creed could easily be called "RPG" in by wide inclusive definition of it - they certainly have character progession, they have xp systems, story, etc yet companies making them don't do it.
20 years from now "RPG" will be either legacy term or it's definition and usage will be much narrower and used towards much smaller number of video games.
No such rift exists in tabletop RPGs. Yes, the D&D DM's guide describes two style of play the way you do; however, it also says that "Most campaigns are going to fall between these two extremes."
There are no two opposing camps. Likely, vast majority of groups played something in between. And everyone got to call their game an RPG.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Among other things that explain why mmoRPGs are in the shitter, i'd like to stand out one that it's not usually commented: Players are provided with too much information and data.
Firstly, numeric data from the back-end, which has caused that some players degenerate into a clinic exercise of playing with the maths instead of performing proper RPG gaming. Hence comes all this obsession with min/maxing, balancing, etc with all the (bad) implications this brings to the player's satisfaction and immersion.
Secondly, information that is presented to the player because of convenience: GPS, maps showing all the details, marks over npcs, Xs marking the spot, etc. This kills all sense of discovery and exploration. Not only that, it immensely limits the possibilities of player/player interaction and interdependency and makes things proportionately boring and short spanned.
This sort of information I talked about in my first point was necessary for a DM in PnP games. In terms of PC gaming, it kills all sense of mystery and fascination and it's one of the main reasons nowadays MMO(RPG)s are so shallow, plain and boring.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I think it would be much more interesting if the players just got the information the avatar is able to perceive, so players would be constantly guessing. It would put the RPG back in the frontline and the gaming experience in terms of player/player interaction and emerging gameplay would be far more enriching and satisfactory, making the game deep and viable on the long run, instead of the cheap short-termish thrills we have today.
That is a discussion that goes back to table-top games.
Some players them like tacitcal combat games, putting very little (or none at all) focus on role-playing, imersing, lore, game world, etc - just going through combat encounters, with occasional puzzle and having fun playing combat scenarios and rolling a dice.
Other group players played same games - but were putting more emphasis on building stories, worlds, acting, pretending to make decisions based on "what would Old Bearded Dwarf Rollo do in this situation" instead "what I want to do in this situation" with dice-rolling and stats being only a part or addition to a game rather than being what this is about.
Both of those groups diffrently defined what "RPG" stands for. For first group RPG was basically "stats, combat and character progression - similar to card or strategy games but with characters instead of units or figures" and for second group RPG was "interactive storytelling with listeners as sort-of-actors, with pre-set rules and stats that made interactive parts possible do play and decide".
Same kind of "rift" happened in video gaming. Players that have similar preferences to "table top first group" consider all games are about progressively making video game character stronger through increasing it's statistics and amassing combat equipment as RPG.
Such players would also consider games like Jagged Alliance, Fallout Tactics, Xcom, Monster Hunter, Dungeon&Figher Online or Diablo as RPG games.
Where players that have similar preferences to "table top second group" consider video games as RPG only when a game is about building "consistant immersive experience in which player can pretend to be an fictionary character in fictionary beliveable world in which combat, story, world and lore are carefully balanced".
Such players would restrict RPG label to lesser number of games and put this label mainly to such games like: Fallouts, The Witchers, Baldurs Gates, Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines, The Elder Scrolls, etc
This discussion was on-going for last 30 years, but it was very marginal because RPG term was much less known, games labelled as "RPG" was much smaller in number and statistics and xp systems usage in gaming was smaller. (althrough it always did existed, also in shooter, platofrm or strategy games).
Now when majority of games are labelled as "RPG" it is kinda obvious why discussion is getting heated again and I doubt it will end until new genre names/labels will emerge and divide diffrent "sub-types" of " video game RPGs" into separate genres.
Other factors like i.e. average gamer getting more experienced in video gaming - also contribute to this.
Actually it already started - games like Grand Theft Auto or Assasin Creed could easily be called "RPG" in by wide inclusive definition of it - they certainly have character progession, they have xp systems, story, etc yet companies making them don't do it.
20 years from now "RPG" will be either legacy term or it's definition and usage will be much narrower and used towards much smaller number of video games.
Right, but I've pointed out the split myself often enough.
Tabletop RPGs and videogame RPGs are separate genres.
Preferring one doesn't magically cause the other not to be an RPG.
Videogame RPGs are RPGs. They've had the same core pillars (progression, story, combat) since the earliest games, quite similar to the same core pillars of tabletop RPGs at the time they branched off. Tabletop RPGs evolved in the other direction, with more of a focus on collaborative storytelling and dynamic content. (So an argument could be made that videogame RPGs are actually closer to the 'genetic' roots of RPGs than tabletop, though I'd find it a bit pointless to make that argument as at the end of the day they're just two distinct genres which are both RPGs.)
The focus of the game determines what you call it. GTA and AC aren't focused on progression, so they're action games. Diablo has a heavy focus on progression, so it's an RPG.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
I do agree in part and disagree in part.
Agreement: Out of character exploration is too easy. The world maps, mob descriptions etc. All that is explorable is described in too much detail on the first encounter (or even before that). There should be a lot of experience gathering and learning going while you are exploring the world around you.
Disagreement: Character/basic world laws should be described in detail. As such, you are playing a person that was born in the world, so basic laws should be available without effort (stat descriptions are one example. I hate character creation without knowing what I am influencing with my choices).
The main problem for me is the ready made conflicts that are the starting point of the vast majority of games today. Since you are starting out as the hero already (or chosen one ... whatever the devs picked), many of the choices are determined at character creation and you cannot do anything about it. What I want to say is this:
At start of game you should have complete information about each step of character creation. With complete I mean the backstory in case you are required to pick a faction (f.e. Rift has this completely backwards since you pick a faction as the first step but know NOTHING about your choice except the good/evil distinction). I want a game where you start as a commoner in your chosen race and pick a class after some learning of the world (I liked Ragnarok Online style of class/job setup).
(as usual I cannot put my thoughts into a coherent statement in words)
That is a discussion that goes back to table-top games.
Some players them like tacitcal combat games, putting very little (or none at all) focus on role-playing, imersing, lore, game world, etc - just going through combat encounters, with occasional puzzle and having fun playing combat scenarios and rolling a dice.
Other group players played same games - but were putting more emphasis on building stories, worlds, acting, pretending to make decisions based on "what would Old Bearded Dwarf Rollo do in this situation" instead "what I want to do in this situation" with dice-rolling and stats being only a part or addition to a game rather than being what this is about.
Both of those groups diffrently defined what "RPG" stands for. For first group RPG was basically "stats, combat and character progression - similar to card or strategy games but with characters instead of units or figures" and for second group RPG was "interactive storytelling with listeners as sort-of-actors, with pre-set rules and stats that made interactive parts possible do play and decide".
Same kind of "rift" happened in video gaming. Players that have similar preferences to "table top first group" consider all games are about progressively making video game character stronger through increasing it's statistics and amassing combat equipment as RPG.
Such players would also consider games like Jagged Alliance, Fallout Tactics, Xcom, Monster Hunter, Dungeon&Figher Online or Diablo as RPG games.
Where players that have similar preferences to "table top second group" consider video games as RPG only when a game is about building "consistant immersive experience in which player can pretend to be an fictionary character in fictionary beliveable world in which combat, story, world and lore are carefully balanced".
Such players would restrict RPG label to lesser number of games and put this label mainly to such games like: Fallouts, The Witchers, Baldurs Gates, Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines, The Elder Scrolls, etc
This discussion was on-going for last 30 years, but it was very marginal because RPG term was much less known, games labelled as "RPG" was much smaller in number and statistics and xp systems usage in gaming was smaller. (althrough it always did existed, also in shooter, platofrm or strategy games).
Now when majority of games are labelled as "RPG" it is kinda obvious why discussion is getting heated again and I doubt it will end until new genre names/labels will emerge and divide diffrent "sub-types" of " video game RPGs" into separate genres.
Other factors like i.e. average gamer getting more experienced in video gaming - also contribute to this.
Actually it already started - games like Grand Theft Auto or Assasin Creed could easily be called "RPG" in by wide inclusive definition of it - they certainly have character progession, they have xp systems, story, etc yet companies making them don't do it.
20 years from now "RPG" will be either legacy term or it's definition and usage will be much narrower and used towards much smaller number of video games.
You're definitely correct (at least from an immersion perspective), but the problem happens before you even make a character.
Everyone wants to know all the details of a game before they buy it (which is understandable, because noone wants to pay for crap). However, what this often translates into is high expectations which, while based in reality (the information provided) gets multiplied by expectations that were never actually mentioned. I.E. 'This class will get a bunch of new skills', then some players think 'oh I'm betting there will be 100s of skills', and when there are only 90 they feel let down.
In-game, this often translates into things like DPS meters. One of the things I really hate in MMOs. There is waaay too much focus on min-maxing stats, and not on actual gameplay. There are a select few games that try and break this norm, but they are still very much the minority.
That's because few games are that black & white these days. In the olden days genres were much more clearly defined, because the games were a lot simpler. Mario was a platformer, duck hunt was a shooter, etc. There was only so much data people could use to create a game, and thus games had a fairly limited amount of content in them. What made up for this was the difficulty many of these games had, which led to replayability, and spending longer amounts of time trying to beat the same content.
These days games are a blend of a bunch of different 'labels'. The labels they are given are a rough guideline to what is the 'dominant' gameplay type. Are you mostly acting out a character through a narrative? RPG. Are you mostly shooting things? Shooter. Are you mostly racing vehicles? Racing game.
Problems is, games evolve. Look at adventure games, for example. Take secret of monkey island. You are playing out a character through a narrative, but doing so through fairly unique puzzle mechanics. As such it's no longer an RPG, but an 'adventure game'. Fast forward to today, and we have MOBAs. Part lobby game, part MMO, part RPG, some (smite) even part FPS.
That's the problem w/ labels. We will always have them, because it's part of how people think. We compartmentalize, we label, we categorize. However it's never perfect. Labels may give us a vague understanding of what we're looking at, but never the whole picture. And they never will.
- Think about this for a second. We have a whole category of games called 'party games'. What does that tell you about the actual gameplay? Not a damned thing. It just conveys that they will be oriented towards having fun with a group of friends.
No such rift exists in tabletop RPGs. Yes, the D&D DM's guide describes two style of play the way you do; however, it also says that "Most campaigns are going to fall between these two extremes."
There are no two opposing camps. Likely, vast majority of groups played something in between. And everyone got to call their game an RPG.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Agreed.
Right, but I've pointed out the split myself often enough.
Tabletop RPGs and videogame RPGs are separate genres.
Preferring one doesn't magically cause the other not to be an RPG.
Videogame RPGs are RPGs. They've had the same core pillars (progression, story, combat) since the earliest games, quite similar to the same core pillars of tabletop RPGs at the time they branched off. Tabletop RPGs evolved in the other direction, with more of a focus on collaborative storytelling and dynamic content. (So an argument could be made that videogame RPGs are actually closer to the 'genetic' roots of RPGs than tabletop, though I'd find it a bit pointless to make that argument as at the end of the day they're just two distinct genres which are both RPGs.)
The focus of the game determines what you call it. GTA and AC aren't focused on progression, so they're action games. Diablo has a heavy focus on progression, so it's an RPG.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver