quote: Original post by dwarfsoft

Naz - yeah.... f*** the genres.... I am going for attributes until we can find something better. Do we have to worry about the different degrees of attributes in the game. I am also wondering how we guage Depth of a game and how you can determine the details of the game

Yeah attributes are a good alternative. Hmmm...Depth is pretty subjective too, isn''t it?


""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

"All you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be." -Pink Floyd

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Okay. I see what you''re saying.

Whenever I say RPG, Final Fantasy 3, Chrono Trigger, those kind of games come to mind, because there is no other classification that they fall within.

Those, I think, are pure RPGs, where the main focus of the game is to play the role of a character within a story AND they have a unique style to them.

I was mistaken when I just threw 75% of all games into the category "RPG" hehe. I was more or less trying to support the fact that rpg''s revolve around a storyline. But I was mistaken by turning it around and saying that because there is a story, it is a RPG. My bad. (=

But I know what you mean: when System Shock 2 won PC Gamer''s RPG of the year, I was utterly confused. I thought to myself, "What happened to little tile-based characters and completely unique battle systems? this looks to me like a FPS..." The line that once defined RPGs has been quite smeared.

Yeah, that shocked me too. I never really understood what an RPG was though and so I managed to grasp this fairly quickly. (Hell, I used to call Diablo an RPG... *shudder*... A LONG time ago). The difference is in the depth (subjective it may be) and the way that it... bah! I can''t even explain it. It comes down to what you believe in it. I think though that I prefer tile based worlds for RPG''s. It puts the game back on the correct side of the old line...

Naz - when I was talking about depth, I was talking about how much history is put into the game so that holes aren''t discovered in the plot and the story as well as the characters. It is about having consistency throughout the game

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

quote: Original post by sypher7

Okay. I see what you're saying.

Whenever I say RPG, Final Fantasy 3, Chrono Trigger, those kind of games come to mind, because there is no other classification that they fall within.

Those, I think, are pure RPGs, where the main focus of the game is to play the role of a character within a story AND they have a unique style to them.

I was mistaken when I just threw 75% of all games into the category "RPG" hehe. I was more or less trying to support the fact that rpg's revolve around a storyline. But I was mistaken by turning it around and saying that because there is a story, it is a RPG. My bad. (=

But I know what you mean: when System Shock 2 won PC Gamer's RPG of the year, I was utterly confused. I thought to myself, "What happened to little tile-based characters and completely unique battle systems? this looks to me like a FPS..." The line that once defined RPGs has been quite smeared.

Don't feel bad, man
The whole point of this is so whoever reads it will go through the same thing you did. They'll say "an RPG is [whatever]" then realize that there are no clear lines.
I've got to check out System Shock 2...Looking Glass just did so many things right w/ Thief that it must be good



""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

"All you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be." -Pink Floyd

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.


Edited by - Nazrix on October 22, 2000 10:58:39 PM

Well maybe we can abandon the old "roleplaying game" title, leaving it for any game that has the run-of-the-mill magic, strategic combat, adventurers, and (optionally) a plot ... instead, we can create a new category for those games that actually take the above to a higher level in which personalities, deeper meaningful plots, relationships, and histories are formed.

Welcome to the Fictional Life Simulation! ;P

(I know, it''s late; I''m going to bed now.)



MatrixCubed

dwarfsoft - I totally agree. I love tile-based RPGs as well. I would love to make one someday just for the fun of it.

Nazrix - Yes, check out System Shock 2. That game is awesome! Try mixing up Resident Evil and the movie Event Horizon, and that''s basically what it is. The manager at the store where I work (computer store) just got it and has been playing it non-stop. Only time that he doesn''t play it is at night (because it would scare the poop outta him. Well, and his wife would prolly yell at him).

"For some reason when i think of booby traps, i think of a bra hanging trip-wire style across a walkway."

I didn''t see this mentioned, but...

RPGs are marked by a few notable characteristics, aren''t they? (At least on the PC)


1) User infuluenced improvement of character abilities over time
2) Combat success or general action success more a matter of character ability than user aiming / UI manipulation skill
3) Shopping
4) Character dialog / talking / interaction
5) Inventory management, equiping and manipulation
6) Puzzles / missions / quests

The in some quarters most hated b@stard-child of RPGs, Diablo, had all of these. There may be console RPGs that violate these rules, but it seems to me that these are the basic ingredient when you say "RPG."

For example, the FPS / RPG hybrid System Shock broke the rules a bit when they modified #2 (aiming, hit detection), but even SS held to all the others (even #2 with Hacking and Psionics) pretty well.

Another example from the RPG / RTS camp: Rage of Mages definitely adhered to all 6, even though in the interests of managing an army I think #5 and #6 were diminished.

BTW, I don''t think story is absolutely necessary, but it can certainly wrap the player in a snug cloak of immersion if done right (for me, that cloak often becomes strangling, so I prefer no story)

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

The list was almost good, but a bit vague. The problem is that Diablo is not an RPG and it fits all of those rules. Diablo II was closer, but still so far. I think it really lacked in interpersonal connection. This is why you can''t define the term ''RPG'' because to people, Diablo was, where as in reality Diablo isn''t

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

quote: Original post by dwarfsoft

The list was almost good, but a bit vague. The problem is that Diablo is not an RPG and it fits all of those rules. Diablo II was closer, but still so far. I think it really lacked in interpersonal connection. This is why you can''t define the term ''RPG'' because to people, Diablo was, where as in reality Diablo isn''t

Vague????

OK, at the risk of ignited a religious jihad....

What exactly is it that makes Diablo not an RPG???? (Remember, I didn''t say "good RPG")

There is a story.
There are quests.
There is shopping.
There is item equipping.
There is inventory management.
There is character growth.
There is (albeit vastly limited) character interaction.
Combat success, no matter how arcade-like, is not a matter of aiming like in a traditional arcade game.

If you say that it was missing interpersonal connection, then I''m to assume that you need multiple people, and thus no single player game is an RPG. This I don''t buy.






--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Ok.. I will say it simply. Diablo had no role and no choice at a role. It was simply hack''n''slash, click''n''kill. What else did you really do that acheived anything? As a warrior you probably (in your role) would have wanted ballads sung about you, to have been celebrated. All you did was kill. As for the rogue? What role did you play? A barbarian... Well, that is a little out of character. And the magician is just as bad. Where was the choice of role to be a jester, a farmer, a hersman, a healer, anything but a mindless slaughterer. There was no role (despite how anybody argues it) it was pure violence. Diablo comes under the term ''TPS'' which is Third Person Shooter (though shooting is more like hacking in this game). At least Theif was more like an RPG than Diablo, you were actually playing your role, not just clicking on an infinite array of bad guys.

DIABLO DIDN''T HAVE ANY CHARACTERISATION (It didn''t count) and Diablo II had some nice advances, but the characterisation still sucked. Nuff Said

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche