When you think about games in terms of attributes (as dwarf described), all a genre is a common collection of attributes that everyone just started copying. Then the public said, "hey these things have this, this, and this in common so let''s name it something."
That is why I think genres are limiting ''cause it makes us think that certain things must be included.
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change someimes the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Must RPGs have a story?
Naz has it. I would not consider removing genres from the sales side... There are already too many idiots who don''t really have a clue about the game industry without confusing other simpletons. Basically, I just think that if you know the attributes that your game holds, you will be better able to describe it on the back cover and you will be able to call it an ''RPG'' or ''FPS'' just for the sake of it. Is that really much to ask. I don''t really care if anybody else takes off on this idea anyway, because I am going to use it! I know the benefits, and I have not seen any pitfalls as yet...
-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
-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
Author
Yep, dwarf has it too 
I don''t mind having to use the genres to other people although it does make me cringe a bit when people mention something about an RPG on these boards and make all the common assumptions about typical RPGs. There are no rules that all the other stuff has to be a certain way, just make everything work together....
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
I don''t mind having to use the genres to other people although it does make me cringe a bit when people mention something about an RPG on these boards and make all the common assumptions about typical RPGs. There are no rules that all the other stuff has to be a certain way, just make everything work together....
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
I''ve noticed a lot of people saying ''Role-Playing Game'': A game where you play a role, and then saying that every game has some role in it. Be it the role of a mass-murderer or commander or whatnot. I then realized, to define ''Role-playing game'' (and I realize you no longer want to define it, but I still think this will help) you must define ''role'' and ''play''.
Role - some kind of characterisation, not just "someone who kills things". That is an action, not a role.
Play - Even in the examples given, playing the role of a mayor, commando, person sent to Mars to explore demonic activities, are you really ''playing'' a role?
When you play Quake, do you consider ''what would someone in this role do in this situation?''
Then again, when you play FFVII do you think ''what would Cloud do in this situation?''
No CRPG is really a ''role-playing'' game.
Instead, any game which borrowed most of its gameplay from traditional PnP RPGs is called RPG.
So maybe, story aside, we define genres by the gameplay. If you shoot things in FP view it is FPS. If you have armies and units that move around in RT it is RTS. If you have characters with stats and gain levels by gaining experience from killing enemies in that ever-so-recognizable RPG-style battle, then you have RPG.
Of course there are so many exceptions, but RPG does not mean ''Role-Playing Game'' it means a game that borrows elements from PnP RPGs.
Role - some kind of characterisation, not just "someone who kills things". That is an action, not a role.
Play - Even in the examples given, playing the role of a mayor, commando, person sent to Mars to explore demonic activities, are you really ''playing'' a role?
When you play Quake, do you consider ''what would someone in this role do in this situation?''
Then again, when you play FFVII do you think ''what would Cloud do in this situation?''
No CRPG is really a ''role-playing'' game.
Instead, any game which borrowed most of its gameplay from traditional PnP RPGs is called RPG.
So maybe, story aside, we define genres by the gameplay. If you shoot things in FP view it is FPS. If you have armies and units that move around in RT it is RTS. If you have characters with stats and gain levels by gaining experience from killing enemies in that ever-so-recognizable RPG-style battle, then you have RPG.
Of course there are so many exceptions, but RPG does not mean ''Role-Playing Game'' it means a game that borrows elements from PnP RPGs.
Why is it that every time the term RPG comes up on this board, it launches a long discussion of trying to define what it meens? This seems to result in a general agreement that RPG doesn''t meen the same thing it used to...
That is pure BS!...the concept of RPGs basicly started with the original version of D&D in the 70''s...but even then..following those game rules...there was nothing [and still is nothing] to stop a DM from makeing a pre-scripted FF type story and directing players to control charactors they did not create...there was/is nothing to stop you from makeing a Diablo type adventure either...all it took to see that was to spend time with a more diverse set of players and DMs...
But now, with the advent of computers and game consoles, we seem to think that RPG meens only one specific type of gameplay, and nothing else...so then when FF or Diablo comes along claiming to be RPGs...We start thinking RPG doesn''t meen anything anymore, or that game X can''t fit into the RPG genre as it doesn''t fit with our personel narrow RPG viewpoint...
Wake up folks!...the "ultimate" computer RPG starts and ends with your system BIOS...computers run off of hard, solid, data...trying to duplicate the RPG experience you had with your friends playing a DM is totaly futile...computers don''t work that way, so you must define things in a precise manner [but the moment you do that you start to piss off part of the "hard core" RPG players]...MMRPGs are just as bad, if not worse, as they inherently must drop the very idea of "player = hero" concept many RPG players expect in a game...simply put, if you want to make the "ultimate" RPG...one that all players can enjoy equaly...then drop any idea of makeing it on a computer [or for a console or any other electronic device]...instead make the game you would want to play and damn what anyone else would think of it...
For the record...RPG..Role Playing Game...is a game that centers around the role the player controls [role could be something the player creates, a role he takes on as an actor would in a play, or any abstract meening thereof]...conventonaly the ''game'' part of the package is built around a statistic/stratigy mixture..others use statistic/action...and some place more emphesis on the game then upon the role [Diablo for example]...by this simple definition all games fit under the RPG label [as it should be]...however the RPG genre generaly contains a visable statistical base to further define charactor abilities and status, players generaly have direct input on one charactor, who in turn MAY direct a limited number of others forming a party [but this isn''t always the case]...the charactors in these RPG games develop within the game through adjustment of the statistical base...and not directly through developed player skill...further, games like Quake borrow elements of RPGs [health is much like the RPG convention of hitpoints] and players do have control over a role...but these are "game playing a role" as the success of the players charactor is directly attributed to player skill not the statistical rules basied systems found in conventional RPGs...thus RPGs share much with war games...but focus on small scale conflict...but within this arena there can be a vast number of creative opertunities...from mixing with a larger percentage of adventure game convention [story and puzzles take higher precidence] you see where Final Fantasy games developed from...mixing in a larger percentage from action games you can end up with Diablo...
There, now is that a definition of the RPG genre we can agree on?...
That is pure BS!...the concept of RPGs basicly started with the original version of D&D in the 70''s...but even then..following those game rules...there was nothing [and still is nothing] to stop a DM from makeing a pre-scripted FF type story and directing players to control charactors they did not create...there was/is nothing to stop you from makeing a Diablo type adventure either...all it took to see that was to spend time with a more diverse set of players and DMs...
But now, with the advent of computers and game consoles, we seem to think that RPG meens only one specific type of gameplay, and nothing else...so then when FF or Diablo comes along claiming to be RPGs...We start thinking RPG doesn''t meen anything anymore, or that game X can''t fit into the RPG genre as it doesn''t fit with our personel narrow RPG viewpoint...
Wake up folks!...the "ultimate" computer RPG starts and ends with your system BIOS...computers run off of hard, solid, data...trying to duplicate the RPG experience you had with your friends playing a DM is totaly futile...computers don''t work that way, so you must define things in a precise manner [but the moment you do that you start to piss off part of the "hard core" RPG players]...MMRPGs are just as bad, if not worse, as they inherently must drop the very idea of "player = hero" concept many RPG players expect in a game...simply put, if you want to make the "ultimate" RPG...one that all players can enjoy equaly...then drop any idea of makeing it on a computer [or for a console or any other electronic device]...instead make the game you would want to play and damn what anyone else would think of it...
For the record...RPG..Role Playing Game...is a game that centers around the role the player controls [role could be something the player creates, a role he takes on as an actor would in a play, or any abstract meening thereof]...conventonaly the ''game'' part of the package is built around a statistic/stratigy mixture..others use statistic/action...and some place more emphesis on the game then upon the role [Diablo for example]...by this simple definition all games fit under the RPG label [as it should be]...however the RPG genre generaly contains a visable statistical base to further define charactor abilities and status, players generaly have direct input on one charactor, who in turn MAY direct a limited number of others forming a party [but this isn''t always the case]...the charactors in these RPG games develop within the game through adjustment of the statistical base...and not directly through developed player skill...further, games like Quake borrow elements of RPGs [health is much like the RPG convention of hitpoints] and players do have control over a role...but these are "game playing a role" as the success of the players charactor is directly attributed to player skill not the statistical rules basied systems found in conventional RPGs...thus RPGs share much with war games...but focus on small scale conflict...but within this arena there can be a vast number of creative opertunities...from mixing with a larger percentage of adventure game convention [story and puzzles take higher precidence] you see where Final Fantasy games developed from...mixing in a larger percentage from action games you can end up with Diablo...
There, now is that a definition of the RPG genre we can agree on?...
Author
quote: Original post by Forneiq
When you play Quake, do you consider ''what would someone in this role do in this situation?''
Then again, when you play FFVII do you think ''what would Cloud do in this situation?''
In Quake, it can be said you''re playing a role. I''ll admit it may not be a deep role. It may not even be a realistic role, but it can be considered a role.
quote:
So maybe, story aside, we define genres by the gameplay. If you shoot things in FP view it is FPS. If you have armies and units that move around in RT it is RTS. If you have characters with stats and gain levels by gaining experience from killing enemies in that ever-so-recognizable RPG-style battle, then you have RPG.
See? Here''s what I''m talking about. I don''t mean to jump down your throat, but notice when speaking of RTS the concept of armies and units is suddenly conjured. Do you see how limiting this is to all of us as designers? Why must they be military armies/units?
Then when you mention RPG, the concept of stats, levels, experience, and killing comes to mind. Why must all these things exist?
Again my point is not to debate what an RPG is, or what games go in what categories. We could debate that for the next 200 posts. My point is, as game developers, genres limit our creativity. It''s one thing to speak in genreal about genres for simplicity, but at least in our own minds we should not allow these sterotypes of genres hinder our creativity. We should allow the possibility to break all those rules that you mentioned. At least allow the possibility to enter our minds. That''s my point.
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Author
MSW,
The point is that none of can really agree on what defines genres. Genres are merely groups of ideas that a few people were clever enough to group together then people started making a name for them.
Again, the point is not to define an RPG. The point is that as developers in our own minds when we think, "I want to develop an RPG", it conjures a lot of the attributes they we have all listed (note that different people have conjured different defining attributes). So, as developers we are limited by our own definitions of what things work together to fit into a genre. I'm saying, as you are designing a game, to hell w/ genres 'cause they limit our creativity. We will associate a genre with all these attributes and not consider other possibilities.
I'm not saying this is an easy thing to do...to clear your mind of predefinited attributes of genres. It's just one of those goals that I think is good to aspire for.
(Wow, Landfish, I think I am finally starting to empathize just a little bit w/ you...My hands are so tired from typing the same thing in different words so many times....)
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Edited by - Nazrix on October 26, 2000 4:00:49 PM
The point is that none of can really agree on what defines genres. Genres are merely groups of ideas that a few people were clever enough to group together then people started making a name for them.
Again, the point is not to define an RPG. The point is that as developers in our own minds when we think, "I want to develop an RPG", it conjures a lot of the attributes they we have all listed (note that different people have conjured different defining attributes). So, as developers we are limited by our own definitions of what things work together to fit into a genre. I'm saying, as you are designing a game, to hell w/ genres 'cause they limit our creativity. We will associate a genre with all these attributes and not consider other possibilities.
I'm not saying this is an easy thing to do...to clear your mind of predefinited attributes of genres. It's just one of those goals that I think is good to aspire for.
(Wow, Landfish, I think I am finally starting to empathize just a little bit w/ you...My hands are so tired from typing the same thing in different words so many times....)
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Edited by - Nazrix on October 26, 2000 4:00:49 PM
quote: Original post by Nazrix
See? Here''s what I''m talking about. I don''t mean to jump down your throat, but notice when speaking of RTS the concept of armies and units is suddenly conjured. Do you see how limiting this is to all of us as designers? Why must they be military armies/units?
Then when you mention RPG, the concept of stats, levels, experience, and killing comes to mind. Why must all these things exist?
You go Nazrix!!! This is a great way to think! I posted about an RTS involving competitive building, infrastructure, and no combat units. I got fewer responses than I wanted, and attributed this partly to the fact that RTS in thought comes with a lot of baggage in thinking.
quote:
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Hey, I got rotated out of the .sig!!!! What''d I do wrong?!!
(j/k) --------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Author
Wav, I am so glad that at least you, dwarf, and LF at least understand or else I'd go nuts. I now understand what LF was talking about when he said that he can exist metaphysically if at least one person understands.
I should have learned from LF's situation not to start a post w/ a sort of shocking rhetorical question. It just throws 90% of the people off. Oh well...
About the sig, it's just an evolutionary sig...it changes over time...nothing personal
You have to come up w/ something cool & new to say to get back in the sig
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Edited by - Nazrix on October 26, 2000 6:52:51 PM
I should have learned from LF's situation not to start a post w/ a sort of shocking rhetorical question. It just throws 90% of the people off. Oh well...
About the sig, it's just an evolutionary sig...it changes over time...nothing personal
You have to come up w/ something cool & new to say to get back in the sig
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
"Though the course may change sometimes, the rivers always reach the sea" --Led Zeppelin
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.
Edited by - Nazrix on October 26, 2000 6:52:51 PM
Yeah, I am totally with you on that one naz. For ages I thought I was crazy because everybody was rejecting my ideas, but now we are on the common front. I would like to see an RTS which is a cross somewhere near to a SIM without combat in it at all. It would be along the lines of setting up a city (medieval of course ) and you needed to strategically send out traders to other cities, to gain sanctions etc. It may come to blows with the traders and other traders, but that is not their primary role... That is a cross genre thing that I would be thinking of... as well as the ex-RPG''s that is 
-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
) and you needed to strategically send out traders to other cities, to gain sanctions etc. It may come to blows with the traders and other traders, but that is not their primary role... That is a cross genre thing that I would be thinking of... as well as the ex-RPG''s that is -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
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
