next »

[Alevice]

It also means that a RPG without any really compelling story is doomed to fail, though.

There is so many counter example of that it's not even fair, diablo being one.

diablo had a compelling lore tho

[gimymblert]

totally what you play the game for

[Sik]

It also means that a JRPG without any really compelling story is doomed to fail, though.

FTFY

Well yeah, there's also the fact that a lot of people really mean JRPG when they say RPG... (doesn't this thread focus mostly on JRPGs, anyway?)

Then again the idea of defining games by a single genre tends to be rather useless anyway. I'm noticing that a single genre usually fails to describe accurately how it plays, but describing a game as two genres (i.e. one describing the base mechanic and one indicating the goal of the game) tends to work out much better and usually good enough to give you a reasonable idea of what to expect.

[s0]

It also means that a JRPG without any really compelling story is doomed to fail, though.

FTFY

i don't even agree with that tbh. my favorite recent jrpg is xenoblade which has a pretty mediocre story but a fun battle system and most importantly a cool open world to explore. i actually don't like jrpg stories much. theyre so often either bad or presented badly despite interesting themes, what with all the ridiculous drawn out pacing, overreliance on exposition, repetitive dialog and other problems already mentioned ITT.

for instance, i think shin megami tensei has some really neat themes about religion and stuff, but as actual stories most of the games are pretty hard to sit through. i find that in SMT games it's ultimately the game mechanics that are stringing me along, not the story.

another example: xenosaga 1 never came out in europe, so the second game was released with a dvd containing all the cutscenes from the first game to get you up to speed on the story. i didn't even make it halfway through that before i got bored out of my mind.

[J-Snake]

The main term I associate with rpg is leveling. Without leveling no rpg.

[eliasfrost]

I think the important thing is what people mean when they say 'RPG' rather than its literal meaning, discussing semantics is fruitless because words are inherently meaningless. I do agree with the whole idea that combat is weirdly ingrained into a genre so wide and full of depth and freedom, things always seems to gravitate towards combat and settling scores with combat which is unfortunate to say the least.

That said I think it's interesting that Undertale is receiving praise for daring to have combatless paths in its game when the game's strong point is fundamentally built upon traditional rules of combat (in a video game sense), it's only the context that is different. You don't kill things (or at least you don't have to) but you do interact with enemies/friends through an interface traditionally used to convey combat and violence. Am I wrong to assume so? Is there a mechanical difference between killing things and talking your way through combat? Besides fluff text?

I should clarify that I don't think the combat system in Undertale is bad or that it's underdeveloped or anything like that. I haven't played it so I don't have an opinion either way (though I have read and watched some). I just think that it's interesting that just by giving the mechanics a new angle the perception of your actions through the mechanics completely shifts even though you interact with the same set of rules and systems.

[Hipshot]

It also means that a JRPG without any really compelling story is doomed to fail, though.

FTFY

Well yeah, there's also the fact that a lot of people really mean JRPG when they say RPG... (doesn't this thread focus mostly on JRPGs, anyway?)

Pretty much everyone I know, when we talk about RPGs in general we mean western RPGs (Baulders Gate, Diablo, etc), what we do if anything is add "A" for action.
When we were younger me and my friends, we really didn't see RPGs as Japanese OR Western, it's just different games.

[s0]

It depends on whether you grew up gaming on consoles or computers i guess. i had both at different stages of my early life (consoles as a kid, pc as a teen) so when i say rpg im referring to both J and W.  

When we were younger me and my friends, we really didn't see RPGs as Japanese OR Western, it's just different games.

same. i didnt know terms like jrpg and wrpg at all until i started posting on internet forums.

[Schoq]

i didnt know terms like jrpg and wrpg at all until i started posting on internet forums.

I think that's true for exactly everyone though

[JWK5]

Diablo kind of became it's own genre, and it really isn't so much an RPG as it is an action adventure game (along the lines of Legend of Zelda, etc.).

[gimymblert]

action RPG will do, zelda is definite action adventure

[DangerMomentum]

Diablo is just as much of an RPG as any Souls game or MMO. Being realtime shouldn't exclude it from being included in the genre. Technically any ATB Final Fantasy is realtime, as are most Bioware games, The Witcher, The Elder Scrolls, etc. I can think of plenty of examples of RPGs that function perfectly well without amazing stories- Diablo, as mentioned, most SMT games, Disgaea, Pokemon. Final Fantasy 5's mechanics are good enough that a huge number of people play through it together yearly, yet the story is bland and largely forgettable. Solid gameplay mechanics can definitely carry an RPG to success.

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

action RPG will do, zelda is definite action adventure

it's an rpg if you want to roleplay link i guess ^^. when i was a kid i wanted to be a plumber.

[Alevice]

but you dont gain any LV

[eliasfrost]

I think the thing that excludes Zelda from being an RPG is not that the character doesn't level but that the game lacks character progression the way we view it in RPGs. Leveling is merely a way to communicate to the player and the game world how powerful your character is, there are other (and in my opinion more elegant) ways to communicate that but that's besides the point.

In Zelda, Link do gain new hearts, new items and cool things to work with but you as a player don't have any agency over how Link goes about gaining these new abilities and items. You either get them (intentional) or you don't (unintentional), in RPGs you pick, choose and compromise and that's at the core of the experience unlike adventure games like Zelda where there's a clear right and wrong way. The exception would be Zelda 2 but then that game funnel your choices down a specific path pretty hard unless you store your xp and gimp yourself just for the sake of picking something else that you would probably be funneled to later on anyways.

That's how I think about it anyways.

[s0]

In Zelda, Link do gain new hearts, new items and cool things to work with but you as a player don't have any agency over how Link goes about gaining these new abilities and items.

same is true for a lot of jrpgs, particularly older ones. you don't have any control over character progression in the early dragon quest games for instance. even final fantasy 4, considered to be one of the first "modern" jrpgs is like that.

oh and how about bethesda games where you almost inevitably become Awesome At Everything at some point?

[eliasfrost]

That's a good point. Honestly I didn't think about those games when I wrote my post so I don't have good reply right now. Probably need more time to think about that one. A quick thought though, the games have a system set in place that tracks your progress be it in levels, your current items or spells. That brings us back to the idea that levels are just a way to communicate to the player and the game world(emphasis) how powerful you are. Zelda is Nihilistic in that way.

In Bethesda games you do have agency, you choose to either use weapons or spells, armor or no armor and your character will progress semi-organically depending on the things you choose to practice. The fact that you can use everything doesn't really matter, the important thing is that you choose the way your character progresses and the game responds accordingly.

[gimymblert]

The reason why zelda is primarily an action adventure is
- the structure of lock and key with puzzle gate like game like monkey island
- reliance on item-key with the use of an inventory to pass through gate
- the lack of character stat and progression, you don't became stronger by doing action
- item drive power, equip the sword you begin with and you are as strong as at the beginning
- Item are not linear in power, they have functionality, one armor is not better, it simply has use in some context.

It's action because:
- Key, gate and puzzle are perform through action challenge

It's RPG because:
- you get a currency for completing quest that improve the character after reaching a level (heart piece)

[s0]

i do think of zelda as a streamlined rpg, especially if you view it in the context of earlier japanese action rpgs. but then again, if you streamline a RPG, you pretty much end up with an adventure game (or with a strategy game).

rpgs are basically adventure games with strategy elements btw

[gimymblert]

I Believe the quarter heart (opposed as full heart) came from xp experiment of zelda 2.

I agree, I was talking from just the game design perspective, fighting monster won't make the boss easier.