Diablo *is* an RPG
David Williams
not being an RPG, being an action game, being a clickfest...
I thought I should share my views. To those who have heard
enough of this subject, stop reading now.
CRPGs vs RPGs
An RPG is about roleplaying. You assume the ROLE of a
character. This means you act like the character and make
game decisions like you believe the character would.
Since human-human interaction is still in its infancy and
computer "AI" non-existant, computer RPGs mean you assume
the role of one or more characters and are limited to
their abilities. This is NOT the full aspect of an RPG.
For example, how many CRPGers decide not to scale Mount
X in search of Artifact Y because their character is
afraid of heights? Why would you do this in an RPG?
Because it is fun. Maybe the character makes the
attempt but turns back... Maybe someone drags him to
the summit. But the game can continue without Artifact
Y.
All RPGs I have seen for the computer are a different
breed. Thus they are commonly dubbed computer RPGs
(CRPGs).
Strategy Games
Strategy games involve deciding how to use limited
resources to obtain a particular goal - namely, to defeat
the opponent(s) trying to do the same. Strategy games
without opponents can be classified as "puzzle" games.
All games involve *some* strategy, otherwise they
wouldn't be *games*.
Most Traditional CRPGs involve a good deal of strategy.
This crosses into the puzzle side, since they don't have
an opponent playing against you, at least in the
typical sense.
Is Diablo an RPG?
Hardly. But then most CRPGs rate the same way. Consider
Bard Tale. Nobody ever questions whether it is an RPG.
Diablo has just as much character interaction and story.
It also has multiplay which adds more human interaction.
Is Diablo a CRPG?
Yes. Your character has abilities, and you depend on them.
But then many computer games have CRPG elements. One of
the latest is Age of Wonders. In AOW, you assume the role
of a hero and adventure the realm, relying on your
abilities.
Bias: Strategy over Action
When people voice their opinions that Diablo "is not an
RPG", they usually are demonstrating their bias to
Strategic RPGs over Action RPGs. Which one is "better",
however, has nothing to do with the subject. Even
Diablo has some strategy, however.
Conclusion
Perhaps the industry needs more specific terminology.
After all, if you purchase Diablo because it is an RPG,
when you really want a Strategic RPG, you are apt to be
dissapointed. It appears to be much like the difference
between "Strategy" and "Real-time Strategy".
--
David.
To reply, replace spam with link.
Henrik Johansson
driver.....I can't think of any computer game that ain't a CRPG. Not
even Giana Sisters.
/Henke The Henke
Andreas Philipp
The only important thing about a game is, if it is fun or not. Is Baldur's
gate a RPG and Diablo not? only because there are some more quests and some
interaction and the big name AD&D? Finally you walk around slashing monsters
and retrieving items in both games. The only thing i know is that both games
were fun. You could go even farther and say a classic adventure is a rpg
without combat. this sucks.
If i compare computer games to P&P roleplaying there hasn't been one game i
honestly would call RPG. Maybe Vampire The Masquerade has a slight chance to
change that, though i am not sure.
Andreas
Rico Suave
in someone elses - bottom line is, what does it matter what genre a game is
in? If it's good, it's good. If it sucks, it sucks.
"David Williams" <hyc...@earthspam.net> wrote in message
news:38726FCE...@earthspam.net...
Noel Llopis
<38726FCE...@earthspam.net>:
>CRPGs vs RPGs
>
>An RPG is about roleplaying. You assume the ROLE of a
>character. This means you act like the character and make
>game decisions like you believe the character would.
>Since human-human interaction is still in its infancy and
>computer "AI" non-existant, computer RPGs mean you assume
>the role of one or more characters and are limited to
>their abilities. This is NOT the full aspect of an RPG.
A CRPG should be what its name implies, an *R*ole *P*laying
*G*ame on a *C*omputer.
Unfortunately, tradition they haven't been that way. They've
traditionally been hackfests with tons of stats and abilities.
At some point people lost track of what they were supposed to
be really about, and accepted the crappy substitute.
Or let's not be too harsh. Let's say, that by trying to port
RPG games to the computer, they created a new genre (action,
hack and slash, with stats). Fine. But that's not by any means
an RPG game.
At one point I was on a crusade to try to clean up the name of
CRPGs and make people understand what they really should be
about. Now I reallize that's impossible. CRPGs are too ingrained
in the gaming culture.
Fine, so maybe we should have TRPGs now. *T*rue RPGs. Diablo
can then be a CRPG. Just don't have anyone tell me that Diablo
(or M&M, or the early Ultimas, or EoB, or the Gold Box games)
are TRPGs.
>For example, how many CRPGers decide not to scale Mount
>X in search of Artifact Y because their character is
>afraid of heights?
In a TRPG that should definetely be in the player's mind (and
maybe even enforced or reinforced by the computer somehow).
In a CRPG, they wouldn't care, because they'd want to get that
neato armor on top of the mountain.
In a TRPG the game is all about role playing your character,
immersing yourself in the world, and enjoying the experience.
If that means you're not getting all the objects and seeing all
the quests... who cares??? Next time when you play with a completely
different character you'll see a whole different world.
So far the only TRPG that I've seen in the computer has been Fallout
(and Fallout 2). Planescape Torment just arrived, so I might have
another TRPG in my hands. For what I hear from people, it sounds
like a winner.
--Noel
David Williams
philosophical
discussion on it, but it may be needed to make sense of the world.
As to why classify a game... when you hear game XYZ is out or being
developed, you want to know what kind of game it is. Some people don't
want to play Diablo, but do want to play Fallout. And vice versa.
(Is there really such a person? :) I don't want to read a review on
EVERY game that comes out, since I can rule out the overwhelming
majority
by the general concept.
So, I repeat the conclusion: calling both Diablo and Fallout RPGs is not
enough since they are quite different games.
--
Peter Knutsen
David Williams wrote:
>
> After hearing all this talk about Diablo barely being an RPG,
> not being an RPG, being an action game, being a clickfest...
> I thought I should share my views. To those who have heard
> enough of this subject, stop reading now.
>
> CRPGs vs RPGs
>
> An RPG is about roleplaying. You assume the ROLE of a
> character. This means you act like the character and make
The problem with that argument is that *everything* ends up being
roleplaying. When you write a letter to a politician (a congress-
man or something) you assume the role of a concerned citizen.
When you reply to a usenet posting which claims that Diablo is
a RolePlaying-Game, you assume the role of a clever debater.
If everything is roleplaying, then the word roleplaying becomes
as useful as the American noun "stuff". A word that is not the
least specific, one that can be used about anything in any
context whatsoever.
So we need a definition of "roleplaying game" that is
narrow enough to actually be useful in conversation and description.
One area where I might need to use the word "roleplaying game" is
when I'm telling you about a new computer game I've just bought.
"It's a roleplaying game, David".
Now, how much does that sentence tell you? If I am using the word
"roleplaying game" according to your definition, the information
content of the sentence is zero. "It's a game" or "It's something"
would have contained the exact same lack of information.
If I'm using the word "roleplaying-like game" according to my
definition, the information content of my statement is much
higher, because you know that I only recognize two computer
games as being "roleplaying-like games", so far. (Fallout I
and Fallout II). If I call the newest CRPG a "roleplaying-
like game", you can deduce that I hold this game in the
same high regard as the fallout games, when it comes to
flexibility and player-freedom.
> game decisions like you believe the character would.
> Since human-human interaction is still in its infancy and
> computer "AI" non-existant, computer RPGs mean you assume
> the role of one or more characters and are limited to
> their abilities. This is NOT the full aspect of an RPG.
I don't accept the existence of computer-moderated roleplaying
games at all. It's only roleplaying if there is a human GM
doing the moderation (=judging, world-handling).
But I still find it very useful to talk about how much like a
roleplaying game a computer game is. Most computer games are not
like a roleplaying game at all. Some have a passing similarity,
such as Baldur's Gate. Others are closer to being like a role-
playing game without actually being one. Fallout 1 and Fallout 2
are the only examples I know of.
My definition of a "roleplaying-like computer game" is a game that
allows you to define the abilities of your character so that you
can assume different roles during the game. And it has to be
actual roles (assassin, merchant, scholar, mercenary), roles that
interacts mechanically with the game world, not roles that are
fictional, existing only in your head (such as not climbing the
mountain because you have decided that your character is afraid
of heights). The game must also allow the player much freedom
of action and offer multiple solutions to most problems, and
multiple very different paths (the path of evil, the path of
goodness, the path of neutrality).
In general, a "roleplaying-like computer game" should do much
simulation and little scripting. The "paths" and "roles" should
not be programmed into the game, instead they should be emergent
phenomena arising from the complex mechanics of the game.
> For example, how many CRPGers decide not to scale Mount
> X in search of Artifact Y because their character is
> afraid of heights? Why would you do this in an RPG?
> Because it is fun. Maybe the character makes the
> attempt but turns back... Maybe someone drags him to
> the summit. But the game can continue without Artifact
> Y.
Some computergames might allow you to give your character a
handicap, such as "afraid of heights (unable to climb walls and
mountains)". In that case it's "real" rather than "fictional",
because the personality aspect is in the game as a player-
chosen handicap, rather than existing solely in the player's head.
> Strategy Games
>
> Strategy games involve deciding how to use limited
> resources to obtain a particular goal - namely, to defeat
> the opponent(s) trying to do the same. Strategy games
> without opponents can be classified as "puzzle" games.
> All games involve *some* strategy, otherwise they
> wouldn't be *games*.
>
> Most Traditional CRPGs involve a good deal of strategy.
> This crosses into the puzzle side, since they don't have
> an opponent playing against you, at least in the
> typical sense.
>
> Is Diablo an RPG?
>
> Hardly. But then most CRPGs rate the same way. Consider
> Bard Tale. Nobody ever questions whether it is an RPG.
I do. Computer-moderated RPG's doesn't exist today.
> Diablo has just as much character interaction and story.
> It also has multiplay which adds more human interaction.
Diablo allows less character definition than Bard's Tale II (the
only Bard's Tale game I've played). The game is still very linear
and very scripted, though.
> Is Diablo a CRPG?
>
> Yes. Your character has abilities, and you depend on them.
> But then many computer games have CRPG elements. One of
> the latest is Age of Wonders. In AOW, you assume the role
> of a hero and adventure the realm, relying on your
> abilities.
>
> Bias: Strategy over Action
>
> When people voice their opinions that Diablo "is not an
> RPG", they usually are demonstrating their bias to
> Strategic RPGs over Action RPGs. Which one is "better",
> however, has nothing to do with the subject. Even
> Diablo has some strategy, however.
The problem here is one that roleplayers (=people who play role-
playing games instead of or along with computer games) have
debated for decades.
Player skill vs. Character skill.
Imagine the roleplaying game takes place in a primitive setting,
such as early medieval England. You, the player, have created a
scholarly character, a monk who is an expert in philosophy,
theology and psychology. These are the skills possessed by
your character, along with what can be assumed to be common
knowledge of that time and period (starting a fire, finding
edible berries and fruits in the forest).
But you, the player, happens to have a university education in
chemistry, and you have some rather useful knowledge about what
happens if a mixture of salpeter, charcoal and sulphur comes
into contact with fire.
You decide to have your character, the monk who has no scientific
knowledge whatsoever, begin to search for the three above mentioned
components. After some months, your character has gathered about
2-3 pounds of each substance, and then he begins to mix them, while
you're telling the GM the exact quantities that you have memorized
from your chemistry handbook.
Should the GM allow this? Your character does not know *anything*
about chemistry, let alone the recipe for gunpowder. Furthermore,
he has no inclination to perform chemical experiements, his
selection of skills suggests an interest in purely intellectual
areas, not any kind of lab work.
Now, a second example. You, the player, have been a sports fencer
for almost a decade. The GM tells you that you have 25 "points"
to purhase abilities for your character. You design yout
character as a somewhat bright and dextrous young man, the son
of a farmer. You use your points to purchase above-average
intelligence, dexterity, and a decent skill in archery and
horseback riding.
Then, during the game, you use your vast personal experience as
a fencer to describe intricate and tricky combat maneuvers, and
since the GM wants to be fair and reward you for creativity and
good combat suggestions, your character ends up defeating
master swordsmen, even though your Character has no actual
skill in swordplay (in other words, his ability to swing a sword
should be as low as that of the average medieval farmer, and such
a low ability can *not* defeat master swordsmen).
That's a second example of a Player using his own skills and
knowledge, instead of having to rely on what his Character knows
and can do.
Now examine Diablo. Combat is very much dependent on Player skill.
You need to click the mouse to perform each attack. If you are
unable to click at least as fast as your Character can attack,
your Character will not perform according to his combat abilities
in combat. (Granted, the game does give you a percentage chance
of hitting, based on the abilities of your Character, but if the
Player lacks the Click-Mouse-Rapidly skill, his Character will
perform worse than the skills of the Character suggests).
Offensive spell use is even worse. Aiming spells at moving targets
that are just a few tiles away is not so much difficult as nearly
impossible. Here, there is no Character skill involved, it relies
only on the ability of the Player to time his mouseclicks.
Character ability plays a very minor role in that the level of
the Character determines the amount of spellpoints, and the
level in the actual spells helps to reduce the cost of casting
those spells.
Archery is a little better since you can fire more arrows than
you can fire spells, before your ammunition/spellpoints runs out.
Also, Character skill plays a direct role here in determining
the chance to hit.
Whether a roleplaying game Character succeeds in his or her quest
should depend on the actual skills and knowledge of the Character,
while the Player functions as the grand-strategy manager who
only influences medium- and large-scale decisions ("should I
kiss the Princiess?", "Should I agree to go on the King's mission?")
> Conclusion
>
> Perhaps the industry needs more specific terminology.
> After all, if you purchase Diablo because it is an RPG,
> when you really want a Strategic RPG, you are apt to be
> dissapointed. It appears to be much like the difference
> between "Strategy" and "Real-time Strategy".
Yes, a more specific terminology would be excellent. But I don't
think we should rely on the production industry to develop
the terminilogy, rather, reviewers (magazines, websites) and
consumers (computer game players) should try to get together
and develop a vocabulary that can discern between Fallout
and Baldur's Gate, and between Baldur's Gate and Diablo.
The problem with this is that many computer game players does
not appear to be able to recognize that there is a vast
difference between Fallout and Baldur's Gate. And this has
the nasty side effect that I cannot accept a recommendation
from someone, along the lines of "Planescape Torment is a
great CRPG", unless I'm 100% certain that the person is able
and willing to discern between games such as Baldur's Gate and
games such as Fallout I/II.
> --
>
> David.
> To reply, replace spam with link.
--
Peter Knutsen
Brian H.
there's so many RPG definitions right here.
Have no experience on P&P RPGs, I am open minded enough to accept
Diablo as an RPG. The way I develop my character through the course of
the game is evident. Of course I will reply on my own skill in
addition to the character's skill to accomplish. But I think it
doesn't really matter to the game itself. In practice you do have to
take into account of your own physical limitation when you play a
game. (E.g., if you have heart problem, should you still play System
Shock 2 even if the character in your game doesn't have heart problem?)
Others will add that RPGs should have no limit, or should have a better
plot, or should have NPC interaction, etc. However I do found there
are games in other genre that have such characteristics. But it seems
those games are not classified as RPGs (e.g., most of the adventure
games).
I doubt that pure RPGs can be implemented successfully in computer.
And in fact what is a pure RPGs? Now all CRPGs must have some action,
some strategy, and some adventure elements in order to make it
outstanding. I will be very doubtful if I'll enjoy a game with very
good RPG elements (like 100 classes & you have 100 stats and each
conversation span to 100 dialogs) but its action is not good enough, or
its strategy element is not good enough, or its adventure element is
not good enough.
Diablo & JA2, two non-standard RPGs, didn't give me any boring moment
like some RPGs did (e.g., BG). I think my $$$ spent on them are 100%
worth.
In article <38726FCE...@earthspam.net>,
David Williams <hyc...@earthspam.net> wrote:
> After hearing all this talk about Diablo barely being an RPG,
> not being an RPG, being an action game, being a clickfest...
> I thought I should share my views. To those who have heard
> enough of this subject, stop reading now.
>
> CRPGs vs RPGs
>
> An RPG is about roleplaying. You assume the ROLE of a
> character. This means you act like the character and make
> game decisions like you believe the character would.
> Since human-human interaction is still in its infancy and
> computer "AI" non-existant, computer RPGs mean you assume
> the role of one or more characters and are limited to
> their abilities. This is NOT the full aspect of an RPG.
>
> For example, how many CRPGers decide not to scale Mount
> X in search of Artifact Y because their character is
> afraid of heights? Why would you do this in an RPG?
> Because it is fun. Maybe the character makes the
> attempt but turns back... Maybe someone drags him to
> the summit. But the game can continue without Artifact
> Y.
>
> All RPGs I have seen for the computer are a different
> breed. Thus they are commonly dubbed computer RPGs
> (CRPGs).
>
> Strategy Games
>
> Strategy games involve deciding how to use limited
> resources to obtain a particular goal - namely, to defeat
> the opponent(s) trying to do the same. Strategy games
> without opponents can be classified as "puzzle" games.
> All games involve *some* strategy, otherwise they
> wouldn't be *games*.
>
> Most Traditional CRPGs involve a good deal of strategy.
> This crosses into the puzzle side, since they don't have
> an opponent playing against you, at least in the
> typical sense.
>
> Is Diablo an RPG?
>
> Hardly. But then most CRPGs rate the same way. Consider
> Bard Tale. Nobody ever questions whether it is an RPG.
> Diablo has just as much character interaction and story.
> It also has multiplay which adds more human interaction.
>
> Is Diablo a CRPG?
>
> Yes. Your character has abilities, and you depend on them.
> But then many computer games have CRPG elements. One of
> the latest is Age of Wonders. In AOW, you assume the role
> of a hero and adventure the realm, relying on your
> abilities.
>
> Bias: Strategy over Action
>
> When people voice their opinions that Diablo "is not an
> RPG", they usually are demonstrating their bias to
> Strategic RPGs over Action RPGs. Which one is "better",
> however, has nothing to do with the subject. Even
> Diablo has some strategy, however.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Perhaps the industry needs more specific terminology.
> After all, if you purchase Diablo because it is an RPG,
> when you really want a Strategic RPG, you are apt to be
> dissapointed. It appears to be much like the difference
> between "Strategy" and "Real-time Strategy".
> --
>
> David.
> To reply, replace spam with link.
>
>
--
Brian.
Human beings can send to bh1234...@nospam.please.ctimail.com.
Spammers can send to bh1...@my-deja.com because I never use it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Williams
> The problem with that argument is that *everything* ends up being
> roleplaying. When you write a letter to a politician (a congress-
> man or something) you assume the role of a concerned citizen.
> When you reply to a usenet posting which claims that Diablo is
> a RolePlaying-Game, you assume the role of a clever debater.
>
> If everything is roleplaying, then the word roleplaying becomes
> as useful as the American noun "stuff". A word that is not the
> least specific, one that can be used about anything in any
> context whatsoever.
Well apparently I need to include the fact that the role you
assume in an RPG is not identical to yourself, and usually his/her
enivironment is very different as well. If you write
a letter, you usually aren't assuming the role of a concerned
citizen for the fun of the experience (roleplaying), you ARE a
concerned citizen (not roleplaying).
>
> So we need a definition of "roleplaying game" that is
> narrow enough to actually be useful in conversation and description.
>
> One area where I might need to use the word "roleplaying game" is
> when I'm telling you about a new computer game I've just bought.
>
> "It's a roleplaying game, David".
>
> Now, how much does that sentence tell you? If I am using the word
> "roleplaying game" according to your definition, the information
> content of the sentence is zero. "It's a game" or "It's something"
> would have contained the exact same lack of information.
>
> If I'm using the word "roleplaying-like game" according to my
> definition, the information content of my statement is much
> higher, because you know that I only recognize two computer
> games as being "roleplaying-like games", so far. (Fallout I
> and Fallout II). If I call the newest CRPG a "roleplaying-
> like game", you can deduce that I hold this game in the
> same high regard as the fallout games, when it comes to
> flexibility and player-freedom.
>
Well if all you say is "It's a roleplaying game", then I don't
have much to go on. What do you expect? Thats a sentence five
words long, if you separate the contraction. I will naturally
assume some things about it if I know its a computer game (like
it probably has a fantasy setting, etc.) All I know is that it
is a game that has a primary element involving the creation/
development of one or more characters, and you assume their
identity to some degree. You probably aren't talking about most
flight sims or Mario Brothers (unless you happen to think the
main fun is pretending you are Mario, do things "as Mario would
do them", and think that getting a mushroom is "character
development.")
Naturally, the first thing I would do is ask you more about
the game. I don't automatically think "oh, its like Fallout"
and rush out to buy it. If you say "Its a roleplaying game
in the spirit of Fallout...", then I will expect the same
playstyle of Fallout. If you say "Its a roleplaying game
like Fallout", then I wonder if you mean the playstyle is
like Fallout, the setting is like Fallout, or both.
What if I tell you that a game "is a strategy game, Peter"? What
does that tell you? I could be talking about solitaire, MOO2,
3rd Reich, or Settlers of Catan. If I happen to think that
MOO2 is the only good computer strategy game, does it then
follow that other games shouldn't be called computer strategy
games?
> I don't accept the existence of computer-moderated roleplaying
> games at all. It's only roleplaying if there is a human GM
> doing the moderation (=judging, world-handling).
>
Accept it or not, CRPGs exist. If they don't, why do you read
this forum? What sort of discussion topics do you expect?
As I said, CRPGs don't have the full experience of RPGs.
> But I still find it very useful to talk about how much like a
> roleplaying game a computer game is. Most computer games are not
> like a roleplaying game at all. Some have a passing similarity,
> such as Baldur's Gate. Others are closer to being like a role-
> playing game without actually being one. Fallout 1 and Fallout 2
> are the only examples I know of.
>
> My definition of a "roleplaying-like computer game" is a game that
> allows you to define the abilities of your character so that you
> can assume different roles during the game. And it has to be
> actual roles (assassin, merchant, scholar, mercenary), roles that
> interacts mechanically with the game world, not roles that are
> fictional, existing only in your head (such as not climbing the
> mountain because you have decided that your character is afraid
> of heights). The game must also allow the player much freedom
> of action and offer multiple solutions to most problems, and
> multiple very different paths (the path of evil, the path of
> goodness, the path of neutrality).
>
> In general, a "roleplaying-like computer game" should do much
> simulation and little scripting. The "paths" and "roles" should
> not be programmed into the game, instead they should be emergent
> phenomena arising from the complex mechanics of the game.
>
> Some computergames might allow you to give your character a
> handicap, such as "afraid of heights (unable to climb walls and
> mountains)". In that case it's "real" rather than "fictional",
> because the personality aspect is in the game as a player-
> chosen handicap, rather than existing solely in the player's head.
>
Well, in a roleplaying game, refusing to climb a mountain *is*
interacting with the game world. In a CRPG, it normally is not...
thats why nobody (including me) does that in a CRPG. Note this
was an example of how CRPGs and RPGs differ. If I was playing GURPS,
say, and chose the disadvantage fear of heights....
Anyway, in an RPG, the whole world is in your head :).
> > Is Diablo an RPG?
> >
> > Hardly. But then most CRPGs rate the same way. Consider
> > Bard Tale. Nobody ever questions whether it is an RPG.
>
> I do. Computer-moderated RPG's doesn't exist today.
Well said. Thats what I get for glittering generalities :)
My point, really, is that neither are RPGs. But since Bard's
Tale is usually classified as a CRPG, why not Diablo?
I just realized the subject of this whole conversation is
a bit contradictory. All I can say is many times CRPG is
assumed over RPG, when talking about computer games. Oops. :)
>
> > Diablo has just as much character interaction and story.
> > It also has multiplay which adds more human interaction.
>
> Diablo allows less character definition than Bard's Tale II (the
> only Bard's Tale game I've played). The game is still very linear
> and very scripted, though.
I was thinking of BT1. Maybe BT2 was more advanced.
> The problem here is one that roleplayers (=people who play role-
> playing games instead of or along with computer games) have
> debated for decades.
>
> Player skill vs. Character skill.
[snip]
> Now examine Diablo. Combat is very much dependent on Player skill.
> You need to click the mouse to perform each attack. If you are
> unable to click at least as fast as your Character can attack,
> your Character will not perform according to his combat abilities
> in combat. (Granted, the game does give you a percentage chance
> of hitting, based on the abilities of your Character, but if the
> Player lacks the Click-Mouse-Rapidly skill, his Character will
> perform worse than the skills of the Character suggests).
True, except for the *very much* dependent part. Unless someone
is handicapped, click rate won't matter that much.
> Offensive spell use is even worse. Aiming spells at moving targets
> that are just a few tiles away is not so much difficult as nearly
> impossible. Here, there is no Character skill involved, it relies
> only on the ability of the Player to time his mouseclicks.
> Character ability plays a very minor role in that the level of
> the Character determines the amount of spellpoints, and the
> level in the actual spells helps to reduce the cost of casting
> those spells.
Partly true. But character stats matter *much* more than you give
credit. The biggest difference is damage potential.
> Archery is a little better since you can fire more arrows than
> you can fire spells, before your ammunition/spellpoints runs out.
> Also, Character skill plays a direct role here in determining
> the chance to hit.
>
> Whether a roleplaying game Character succeeds in his or her quest
> should depend on the actual skills and knowledge of the Character,
> while the Player functions as the grand-strategy manager who
> only influences medium- and large-scale decisions ("should I
> kiss the Princiess?", "Should I agree to go on the King's mission?")
Still, just because Diablo players can use their manual dexterity
to boost their characters skill, does this prevent it from being
a CRPG? In most CRPGs, a player can boost their characters skill
using strategy. They choose what skills to learn. They choose
what combat formations to use. They choose what spells to use,
and when. They don't rely on their fighters Tactics skill to
determine what the fighter attempts in combat. They don't rely on
the mages intelligence to determine if now is the best time to
blast XYZ spell. And in an RPG, players choose what words to say,
instead of merely saying "I convince the bandits to join our
cause" and then making a Charisma roll.
> Yes, a more specific terminology would be excellent. But I don't
> think we should rely on the production industry to develop
> the terminilogy, rather, reviewers (magazines, websites) and
> consumers (computer game players) should try to get together
> and develop a vocabulary that can discern between Fallout
> and Baldur's Gate, and between Baldur's Gate and Diablo.
Yes, naturally most people must be involved, or at least one
must be able to tell quickly who is and who is not.
> The problem with this is that many computer game players does
> not appear to be able to recognize that there is a vast
> difference between Fallout and Baldur's Gate. And this has
> the nasty side effect that I cannot accept a recommendation
> from someone, along the lines of "Planescape Torment is a
> great CRPG", unless I'm 100% certain that the person is able
> and willing to discern between games such as Baldur's Gate and
> games such as Fallout I/II.
>
I agree. :)
> --
> Peter Knutsen
Wavver
Allways will be. Its an insult to call it an RPG after real RPG's like PS:T
are around.
Waver
David Williams
I don't care if Sonic the Hedgehog is a good game. I don't
even know if it is - but I'm not playing it, either way.
If all I have is a list of "good" games vs. "bad" games, no
genre breakdowns, how much longer will it take me to find the
game I want?
Rico Suave wrote:
>
> Who cares? It has enough RPG elements to qualify in my book. It might not
> in someone elses - bottom line is, what does it matter what genre a game is
> in? If it's good, it's good. If it sucks, it sucks.
>
--
David Williams
> At one point I was on a crusade to try to clean up the name of
> CRPGs and make people understand what they really should be
> about. Now I reallize that's impossible. CRPGs are too ingrained
> in the gaming culture.
Yes, and I now realize my mistake in the threads subject... CRPG!
> Fine, so maybe we should have TRPGs now. *T*rue RPGs. Diablo
> can then be a CRPG. Just don't have anyone tell me that Diablo
> (or M&M, or the early Ultimas, or EoB, or the Gold Box games)
> are TRPGs.
I wouldn't dream of that. :)
[snip]
> So far the only TRPG that I've seen in the computer has been Fallout
> (and Fallout 2). Planescape Torment just arrived, so I might have
> another TRPG in my hands. For what I hear from people, it sounds
> like a winner.
>
> --Noel
Well, Fallout seems to be the closest CRPG to a TRPG. But it still
falls under CRPG for me. A TRPG on the computer may be impossible
without a human GM player or AI.
I wonder about Planescape. So many liked BG that I must be cautious.
Peter Knutsen
David Williams wrote:
>
> Noel Llopis wrote:
> > So far the only TRPG that I've seen in the computer has been Fallout
> > (and Fallout 2). Planescape Torment just arrived, so I might have
> > another TRPG in my hands. For what I hear from people, it sounds
> > like a winner.
> >
> > --Noel
>
> Well, Fallout seems to be the closest CRPG to a TRPG. But it still
> falls under CRPG for me. A TRPG on the computer may be impossible
> without a human GM player or AI.
It is (at least now and for the next 1-3 decades). But I insist
that computer games can be more or less like roleplaying games,
closer to or further away from what you call a TRPG. Fallout I/II
is the closest thing so far, although I can't be certain that Plane-
scape isn't better. Diablo is very far from being a TRPG, Civili-
zation is even further away (because you have no specific iden-
tity in the game).
> I wonder about Planescape. So many liked BG that I must be cautious.
I've heard lots of people praise Planescape, but the problem is,
they talk about story and plotline, and I'm more interested in
breadth, depth, complexity of simulation and the ability to assume
very different roles.
> --
> David.
> To reply, replace spam with link.
--
Peter Knutsen
Michael Andress
on the head of a Pin?"
Michael
> Is Diablo an RPG?
>
> Hardly. But then most CRPGs rate the same way. Consider
> Bard Tale. Nobody ever questions whether it is an RPG.
> Diablo has just as much character interaction and story.
> It also has multiplay which adds more human interaction.
>
> Is Diablo a CRPG?
>
> Yes. Your character has abilities, and you depend on them.
> But then many computer games have CRPG elements. One of
> the latest is Age of Wonders. In AOW, you assume the role
> of a hero and adventure the realm, relying on your
> abilities.
>
> Bias: Strategy over Action
>
> When people voice their opinions that Diablo "is not an
> RPG", they usually are demonstrating their bias to
> Strategic RPGs over Action RPGs. Which one is "better",
> however, has nothing to do with the subject. Even
> Diablo has some strategy, however.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Perhaps the industry needs more specific terminology.
> After all, if you purchase Diablo because it is an RPG,
> when you really want a Strategic RPG, you are apt to be
> dissapointed. It appears to be much like the difference
> between "Strategy" and "Real-time Strategy".
Peter Knutsen
David Williams wrote:
>
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
> > If everything is roleplaying, then the word roleplaying becomes
> > as useful as the American noun "stuff". A word that is not the
> > least specific, one that can be used about anything in any
> > context whatsoever.
>
> Well apparently I need to include the fact that the role you
> assume in an RPG is not identical to yourself, and usually his/her
> enivironment is very different as well. If you write
> a letter, you usually aren't assuming the role of a concerned
> citizen for the fun of the experience (roleplaying), you ARE a
> concerned citizen (not roleplaying).
That "narrowing down" doesn't get much actual narrowing down.
Using your definition, Half-Lif and Thief are roleplaying games.
Ages of Empires II is a roleplaying game in the scenarios (where
you play Joan of Arc, Saladin and other historical leaders).
> >
> > So we need a definition of "roleplaying game" that is
> > narrow enough to actually be useful in conversation and description.
> >
> > One area where I might need to use the word "roleplaying game" is
> > when I'm telling you about a new computer game I've just bought.
> >
> > "It's a roleplaying game, David".
> >
> > Now, how much does that sentence tell you? If I am using the word
> > "roleplaying game" according to your definition, the information
> > content of the sentence is zero. "It's a game" or "It's something"
> > would have contained the exact same lack of information.
> >
> > If I'm using the word "roleplaying-like game" according to my
> > definition, the information content of my statement is much
> > higher, because you know that I only recognize two computer
> > games as being "roleplaying-like games", so far. (Fallout I
> > and Fallout II). If I call the newest CRPG a "roleplaying-
> > like game", you can deduce that I hold this game in the
> > same high regard as the fallout games, when it comes to
> > flexibility and player-freedom.
> >
>
> Well if all you say is "It's a roleplaying game", then I don't
> have much to go on. What do you expect? Thats a sentence five
> words long, if you separate the contraction. I will naturally
But a five-word sentence can contain a lot more information.
Q: What is soccar?
A: It is a ball game
(five words, or four if it's legal to write ballgame in a single
word).
Q2: What is Half-Life?
Q3: What is Fallout I?
A2: Half-Life is a roleplaying game
A3: "Fallout I" is a roleplaying game
> assume some things about it if I know its a computer game (like
> it probably has a fantasy setting, etc.) All I know is that it
> is a game that has a primary element involving the creation/
> development of one or more characters, and you assume their
> identity to some degree. You probably aren't talking about most
> flight sims or Mario Brothers (unless you happen to think the
> main fun is pretending you are Mario, do things "as Mario would
> do them", and think that getting a mushroom is "character
> development.")
That's a common assumption, but as long as it is common to
refer to Diablo as a CRPG, I cannot make good use of the term.
> Naturally, the first thing I would do is ask you more about
> the game. I don't automatically think "oh, its like Fallout"
Tht's nice. But wouldn't it be even nicer if I could initially
label the game so that Diablo-philics would immediately realize
that it's not a game for them, and so that Fallout-fans would
give me their full attention?
Maybe I could use the label in the subject line of a posting in
this newsgroup. "Short review of the new CRPG: Diablo II".
This newsgroup has such a high bandwidth that most people can't
and won't read all the postings. This is were good and clearly
defined labels can be of great help.
> What if I tell you that a game "is a strategy game, Peter"? What
> does that tell you? I could be talking about solitaire, MOO2,
It tells me that it's not a CRPG or a RTT or an adventure game.
That's a lot of narrowing down already.
> 3rd Reich, or Settlers of Catan. If I happen to think that
> MOO2 is the only good computer strategy game, does it then
> follow that other games shouldn't be called computer strategy
> games?
I'm not talking about good games within a genre vs. bad games
within the same genre, I'm talking about games that are so
different from one another that they should not be categorized
into the same genre. Diablo vs. Fallout, for instance.
> > I don't accept the existence of computer-moderated roleplaying
> > games at all. It's only roleplaying if there is a human GM
> > doing the moderation (=judging, world-handling).
> >
>
> Accept it or not, CRPGs exist. If they don't, why do you read
> this forum? What sort of discussion topics do you expect?
I'm hoping to get some pointers to CRPG's that are good
aproximations of the experience of playing a RPG. Such as
Fallout I/II. But I find that most people (not you, but most
others) are unable to see the difference between a game such
as Fallout I and a game such as Baldur's Gate.
> As I said, CRPGs don't have the full experience of RPGs.
I'm not opposed to the idea of CRPG's at all, it's just that I'm
in favour of narrow and precise definitions and labels rather
than vague catch-all terms.
> > Some computergames might allow you to give your character a
> > handicap, such as "afraid of heights (unable to climb walls and
> > mountains)". In that case it's "real" rather than "fictional",
> > because the personality aspect is in the game as a player-
> > chosen handicap, rather than existing solely in the player's head.
> >
>
> Well, in a roleplaying game, refusing to climb a mountain *is*
> interacting with the game world. In a CRPG, it normally is not...
> thats why nobody (including me) does that in a CRPG. Note this
> was an example of how CRPGs and RPGs differ. If I was playing GURPS,
> say, and chose the disadvantage fear of heights....
> Anyway, in an RPG, the whole world is in your head :).
Not really. Much of what goes on is governed by written rules.
Skill use, combat, magic use (both combat and magic use ought
to be treated like skills, and most decent RPG rules systems
does), are areas that are good subject matter for rules.
You may have some ideas in your head, but the ideas you have will
constantly clash with three other factors:
1. What's in the GM's head
2. What's in the heads of the other players
3. The rules of the RPg system used, and random input provided by
dice.
So while ideas might be in the player's head, they aren't left
alone like daydream-fantasies.
> > > Is Diablo an RPG?
> > >
> > > Hardly. But then most CRPGs rate the same way. Consider
> > > Bard Tale. Nobody ever questions whether it is an RPG.
> >
> > I do. Computer-moderated RPG's doesn't exist today.
>
> Well said. Thats what I get for glittering generalities :)
> My point, really, is that neither are RPGs. But since Bard's
> Tale is usually classified as a CRPG, why not Diablo?
I don't classify Bard's Tale II as a CRPG.
> I just realized the subject of this whole conversation is
> a bit contradictory. All I can say is many times CRPG is
> assumed over RPG, when talking about computer games. Oops. :)
I doubt this causes a lot of onfusion. After all, few of the
people who post in here has any significant exposure to
roleplaying games.
> > Diablo allows less character definition than Bard's Tale II (the
> > only Bard's Tale game I've played). The game is still very linear
> > and very scripted, though.
>
> I was thinking of BT1. Maybe BT2 was more advanced.
I doubt BT2 was more advanced than BT1, but it was possible to
create up to 7 characters. You picked a species and a class
for each character, and then you got a random set of statistics
and could accept or re-roll them.
> > The problem here is one that roleplayers (=people who play role-
> > playing games instead of or along with computer games) have
> > debated for decades.
> >
> > Player skill vs. Character skill.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Now examine Diablo. Combat is very much dependent on Player skill.
> > You need to click the mouse to perform each attack. If you are
> > unable to click at least as fast as your Character can attack,
> > your Character will not perform according to his combat abilities
> > in combat. (Granted, the game does give you a percentage chance
> > of hitting, based on the abilities of your Character, but if the
> > Player lacks the Click-Mouse-Rapidly skill, his Character will
> > perform worse than the skills of the Character suggests).
>
> True, except for the *very much* dependent part. Unless someone
> is handicapped, click rate won't matter that much.
It's still important to pay constant attention. If you become
distracted for a split second, you'll loose a few attacks.
> > Offensive spell use is even worse. Aiming spells at moving targets
> > that are just a few tiles away is not so much difficult as nearly
> > impossible. Here, there is no Character skill involved, it relies
> > only on the ability of the Player to time his mouseclicks.
> > Character ability plays a very minor role in that the level of
> > the Character determines the amount of spellpoints, and the
> > level in the actual spells helps to reduce the cost of casting
> > those spells.
>
> Partly true. But character stats matter *much* more than you give
> credit. The biggest difference is damage potential.
True, but the player still needs to micromanage combat in realtime,
which sucks. At least in BG, characters are smart enough to keep
attacking with weapons once the order has been given. Only
spellcasting needs to be micromanaged.
> > Archery is a little better since you can fire more arrows than
> > you can fire spells, before your ammunition/spellpoints runs out.
> > Also, Character skill plays a direct role here in determining
> > the chance to hit.
> >
> > Whether a roleplaying game Character succeeds in his or her quest
> > should depend on the actual skills and knowledge of the Character,
> > while the Player functions as the grand-strategy manager who
> > only influences medium- and large-scale decisions ("should I
> > kiss the Princiess?", "Should I agree to go on the King's mission?")
>
> Still, just because Diablo players can use their manual dexterity
> to boost their characters skill, does this prevent it from being
> a CRPG? In most CRPGs, a player can boost their characters skill
Allowing player's-skill to influence the course of the game does
not prevent a game from being a roleplaying game (or a CRPG), but
it shifts the game away from the "roleplaying game" axis and
towards something else. I'm not sure what, but the distinction
between player and character gets blurred and that's not desirable.
> using strategy. They choose what skills to learn. They choose
> what combat formations to use. They choose what spells to use,
> and when. They don't rely on their fighters Tactics skill to
> determine what the fighter attempts in combat. They don't rely on
> the mages intelligence to determine if now is the best time to
Much of that is common sense, which is expected of IQ 100 people
who have adventuring experience. And if an IQ 85 warrior tries
to use fancy combat tactics in one of my RPG campaigns, I'll
tell him to stop, give him severe Experience Points penalties
for out-of-character-behaviour, and if he persists he gets
booted out of my campaign.
One good example is that, in a fictional RPG rules system,
swords does 1d8+1 points of damage and axes does 1d8 points
of damage. Most players will have their characters pick
swords instead of axes. Is this cheating? Is this making-use-
of-player-knowledge? No to both questions. The characters
have lived in the gameworld for decades (assuming they're
20 years old), they've been brought up in a tradition that
claims that swords are better weapons than axes. And this
tradition is probably based in hundreds (or thousands) of
years of accumulated martial wisdom.
> blast XYZ spell. And in an RPG, players choose what words to say,
> instead of merely saying "I convince the bandits to join our
> cause" and then making a Charisma roll.
As a GM, I'd pay very much attention to the Charisma of the
character, and what skills he has, when determining how the
bandits will react to the character trying to get them to
join his cause.
> --
> David.
> To reply, replace spam with link.
--
Peter Knutsen
Pedro Faria
<hyc...@earthspam.net> wrote:
>Is Diablo an RPG?
Who really cares? As long as it is fun to play, I will buy any game.
--
Pedro Faria
Pedro Faria
>I think everyone has his/her own expectation on RPG and that's why
>there's so many RPG definitions right here.
>
>Have no experience on P&P RPGs, I am open minded enough to accept
>Diablo as an RPG. The way I develop my character through the course of
>the game is evident. Of course I will reply on my own skill in
>addition to the character's skill to accomplish. But I think it
>doesn't really matter to the game itself. In practice you do have to
>take into account of your own physical limitation when you play a
>game. (E.g., if you have heart problem, should you still play System
>Shock 2 even if the character in your game doesn't have heart problem?)
>
>Others will add that RPGs should have no limit, or should have a better
>plot, or should have NPC interaction, etc. However I do found there
>are games in other genre that have such characteristics. But it seems
>those games are not classified as RPGs (e.g., most of the adventure
>games).
>
>I doubt that pure RPGs can be implemented successfully in computer.
>And in fact what is a pure RPGs? Now all CRPGs must have some action,
>some strategy, and some adventure elements in order to make it
>outstanding. I will be very doubtful if I'll enjoy a game with very
>good RPG elements (like 100 classes & you have 100 stats and each
>conversation span to 100 dialogs) but its action is not good enough, or
>its strategy element is not good enough, or its adventure element is
>not good enough.
Here is an article that somewhat touches the topic:
http://www.cdmag.com/Home/home.html?article=/articles/025/073/grumpyg.html
>
>Diablo & JA2, two non-standard RPGs, didn't give me any boring moment
>like some RPGs did (e.g., BG). I think my $$$ spent on them are 100%
>worth.
--
Pedro Faria
Jarulf's Guide to Diablo and Hellfire
http://pf.chemeng.lth.se/diablo/
Knight37
>If I'm using the word "roleplaying-like game" according to my
>definition, the information content of my statement is much
>higher, because you know that I only recognize two computer
>games as being "roleplaying-like games", so far. (Fallout I
>and Fallout II). If I call the newest CRPG a "roleplaying-
>like game", you can deduce that I hold this game in the
>same high regard as the fallout games, when it comes to
>flexibility and player-freedom.
As far as I'm concerned it's just as useless to have a definition that
means "games like FO1+2" as it is to have a definition that means "any
game where you play the role of a character." There already *is* a
generally accepted definition for CRPG.
A CRPG is a computer game that has elements in it similar to role-
playing games, such as character statistics and development, story,
combat, quests, etc. There are also games that are *like* CRPG's but
aren't really CRPG's. Like Diablo. Diablo is what a lot of people refer
to as "action-RPG" or "action-CRPG" or whatever. It's a CRPG but with
action elements, which basically means it requires manual dexterity to
be successful at.
And a CRPG is *NOT* the same thing as a pen and paper RPG. May never
be. There is simply not enough depth conveyed by a computer to match
the depth of several people spontaneously creating a joint story. Even
if NWN does everything BioWare is claiming it will do, it still won't
be as spontaneous or have the depth of a good pen and paper RPG
session. So it's not very useful to make the definition of CRPG =
"computer moderated RPG", simply because no game yet exists that would
fall into the genre, so why have it?
--
Knight37
"This is your life.
Good to the last drop.
Doesn't get any better than this.
This is your life,
and it's ending one minute at a time." -- Tyler Durden
Andreas Philipp
Wavver <wav...@hotmail.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
3872a3d8$0$13...@motown.iinet.net.au...
RPG up to now. They are both just good games (at least for the people who
like them, e.g. me)
Andreas
Andreas Philipp
Pedro Faria <pedro...@chemeng.lth.*se> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
38730593....@news.lth.se...
YEAH MAN! THIS IS THE BEST ANSWER I'VE SEEN HERE :))
Andreas
Andreas Philipp
>
> And a CRPG is *NOT* the same thing as a pen and paper RPG. May never
> be. There is simply not enough depth conveyed by a computer to match
> the depth of several people spontaneously creating a joint story. Even
> if NWN does everything BioWare is claiming it will do, it still won't
> be as spontaneous or have the depth of a good pen and paper RPG
> session. So it's not very useful to make the definition of CRPG =
> "computer moderated RPG", simply because no game yet exists that would
> fall into the genre, so why have it?
>
Hmmm, you should take a closer look at Vampire The Masquerade Redemption. It
seems it will be the first game offering true RPG-elements, for example a
storyteller in the multiplayer mode, who can act spontanously and take over
NPCs for example. Btw, no single player game can ever be able to be called
RPG, and even all multiplayer games are not more than multiplayer
adventures, as there is no chance to really interact spontanously with other
players and change a storyline.
Andreas
AstroNerdBoy
In article <38726FCE...@earthspam.net>,
> Is Diablo an RPG?
>
> Hardly. But then most CRPGs rate the same way. Consider
> Bard Tale. Nobody ever questions whether it is an RPG.
> Diablo has just as much character interaction and story.
> It also has multiplay which adds more human interaction.
>
> Is Diablo a CRPG?
>
> Yes. Your character has abilities, and you depend on them.
> But then many computer games have CRPG elements. One of
> the latest is Age of Wonders. In AOW, you assume the role
> of a hero and adventure the realm, relying on your
> abilities.
>
> Bias: Strategy over Action
>
> When people voice their opinions that Diablo "is not an
> RPG", they usually are demonstrating their bias to
> Strategic RPGs over Action RPGs. Which one is "better",
> however, has nothing to do with the subject. Even
> Diablo has some strategy, however.
>
> Conclusion
>
> Perhaps the industry needs more specific terminology.
> After all, if you purchase Diablo because it is an RPG,
> when you really want a Strategic RPG, you are apt to be
> dissapointed. It appears to be much like the difference
> between "Strategy" and "Real-time Strategy".
> --
>
> David.
> To reply, replace spam with link.
>
>
--
-Earl
http://www.astronerdboy.com/comic-strips
Slash
<henke....@telia.com> scribbled:
>Rally Championship 2000 is also a CRPG.....you take the role of a
>driver.....I can't think of any computer game that ain't a CRPG. Not
>even Giana Sisters.
Catfight?
-Slash
"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."
- Terry Pratchett
Markus Mokkanen
>After hearing all this talk about Diablo barely being an RPG,
>not being an RPG, being an action game, being a clickfest...
If Diablo is a roleplaying game, then so is Castlevania: Symphony of
the Night. The both have levelling up, after all.
In my book both of them are action games with some light RPG
overtones.
>An RPG is about roleplaying. You assume the ROLE of a
>character. This means you act like the character and make
>game decisions like you believe the character would.
In that case Tomb Raider is a RPG. Monkey Island 2 is a RPG. Grim
Fandango is a RPG. Jane's F-15 flight sim is a RPG.
>Is Diablo an RPG?
>
>Hardly. But then most CRPGs rate the same way. Consider
>Bard Tale. Nobody ever questions whether it is an RPG.
Neither would anyone say it is an action game with RPG overtones.
>Diablo has just as much character interaction and story.
But not as much emphasis on developing your character(s), which is the
essence of (C)RPGs.
>Is Diablo a CRPG?
>
>Yes. Your character has abilities, and you depend on them.
It is an action game with levelling up and abilities, like
Castlevania: SOTN.
>Bias: Strategy over Action
>
>When people voice their opinions that Diablo "is not an
>RPG", they usually are demonstrating their bias to
>Strategic RPGs over Action RPGs. Which one is "better",
>however, has nothing to do with the subject. Even
>Diablo has some strategy, however.
Depending too much on either action or strategy makes a game less a
CRPG. (C)RPGs are about developing your character(s) and coping in the
world with their developed skills, not about how fast reflexes you
have or how good strategic war plans you have.
Two examples of games which rely so much on strategy that it makes
them less of RPGs than strategy/tactical games: Jagged Alliance 2 and
Final Fantasy Tactics. They are strategy/tactical games with RPG
overtones.
Two examples of games which rely so much on action that it makes them
less of RPGs than action games: Diablo and Castlevania: SOTN. They are
action games with RPG overtones.
Brian Robinson
> Consider
> Bard Tale. Nobody ever questions whether it is an RPG.
>
fast car?" Well, when it came out, it was the fastest car around. Today
it can't even exceed the speed limits on most streets. When Bard's Tale
came out, it was about all that could be done with the technology. It was
a good RPG for its time, because it did what was possible. However, today
games can feature more in depth plots, more decisions, etc, and if Bard's
tale was released today it would be called a Fantasy Strategy game with
RPG elements.
> Bias: Strategy over Action
> When people voice their opinions that Diablo "is not an
> RPG", they usually are demonstrating their bias to
> Strategic RPGs over Action RPGs. Which one is "better",
> however, has nothing to do with the subject. Even
> Diablo has some strategy, however.
>
I really think this is missing the point. Strategy games are
fundamentally different from RPGs. Look at Rages of Mages, a game very
similar to Diablo. Most people considered it to be more RTS than RPG.
But it was not too popular so no one ever got hot and bothered over people
not calling it an RPG. Diablo was very popular, and some want to say that
it is an RPG, so we have these discussions.
--
Brian Robinson
brob...@ist.ucf.edu
Institute for Simulation and Training
Brian Robinson
> Why do you always try to put games into certain genres? That's ridiculous!
>
getting. If I don't like action games, I won't like Diablo, because its
basically a shoot 'em up. If I'm looking for an RPG, I'm thinking about a
game where I can get involved in interesting situations and have an effect
on the world depending on how I play my character. In Diablo, the only
choices you had were what you were wielding and how you spent your skill
points. You couldn't decide to blow up the reactor or fix it (like you
can in Fallout). You couldn't decide to try to make peace with the
monsters in the dungeon with words. All the game consisted of was killing
things. And killing things is not role playing.
Knight37
[snip]
>if Bard's tale was released today it would
>be called a Fantasy Strategy game with RPG elements.
You might would call it that, but most people would just call it an
RPG. Most people have a broader definition of RPG than you apparently
have. I'm perfectly happy using the label RPG on Diablo. Of course, if
you want to get MORE SPECIFIC, then I'd call it an Action RPG. But it's
still an RPG.
--
Knight37
"From where you're standing you can't even imagine what the bottom
looks like. It's only after you've lost everything that you're truely
free to do anything." -- Tyler Durden
Michael
agree on what those categories are, I can't believe what I'm reading for RPG
definitions. Some of you are trying to be way too technical while others seem
to have nothing better to do than pick apart the definitions of others. Let me
throw MY definition into the ring and see if it sits well with any of you.
I have quite a bit of experience with P&P RPGs, so my opinion on what
constitutes a CRPG is based on that. I see three elements needed to be a CRPG.
1) Character or characters with statistics which can be improved over time.
2) A plot.
3) A name which will be remembered when speaking to others.
#1 is pretty self explanatory. It also rules out most every game that I'd
classify as an Adventure game. However, I concede that the two genres have
similarities, which is no doubt why I enjoy them both. =)
Some might claim that #2 is present in almost every computer game. Please! I
enjoy HOMM3, but just because it gives you a blurb for the scenario which tells
you why you're supposedly fighting, that is NOT a plot. Driving a car in a
racing game and knowing you are supposed to win the race is NOT a plot.
#3 will surely need some explanation. Diablo is perfect for this. First off,
let me state that I do not believe Diablo is a CRPG. I believe it's an arcade
mouse click-fest just as another poster has already said. I also believe it's
a BORING game, but I guess that's not why we're all here. Anyway, I have no
idea what name I used when I played Diablo. It didn't matter. It's entirely
irrelevant to playing the game. I can name my entire party in Fallout. In the
sense of the game mechanics, the names didn't matter either, but they DO matter
to me. By knowing those character names in spite of them not being important
to gameplay, I am showing some level of emotional involvement with them. I
care about them as if they were ROLES I HAD PLAYED.
Ultimately, when I hear a game referred to as a CRPG, I assume that it is
played in a manner similar to a P&P RPG. If that's not the case, then it's NOT
a CRPG.
I've seen mentioned a couple of times that Fallout and Baldur's Gate should NOT
be considered in the same genre. Why is that? From what I know of these two
games, they're both CRPGS.
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate.
And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
Brian Robinson
> You might would call it that, but most people would just call it an
> RPG. Most people have a broader definition of RPG than you apparently
> have. I'm perfectly happy using the label RPG on Diablo. Of course, if
> you want to get MORE SPECIFIC, then I'd call it an Action RPG. But it's
> still an RPG.
>
completely dominated by FPS. In the old days, Diablo would be called an
action game. No one ever tried to call Gauntlet an RPG, but Diablo and
Gauntlet are practically identical. I have been playing the new Gauntlet
game on N64 this week and I was struck by how similar it is to Diablo.
And its not an RPG.
Diablo is more like Asteroids than any RPG I've ever
seen. 95% of the game is point and shoot, with 5% being inventory
management. There's no role playing involved. You can't make any
decisions about your character other than statistics and class, and those
only change how you fight.
I think its the lack fo other action games on the PC to compare
to. Diablo follows the same pattern as many action games on console
systems, however. You choose a character and go shoot things. I don't
know how that equals role playing. Would it still be an RPG if instead of
Rogue, Warrior, and Mage, you could select Jeep, Tank, and Plane as your
character at the beginning, with the only other change being the graphics?
I mean, they could do that quite easily. Try doing that to Fallout, and
it makes no sense.
Brian Robinson
> 1) Character or characters with statistics which can be improved over time.
>
it is not required to have an RPG. You say you're familiat with pen and
paper RPGs; how about diceless roleplaying, like Amber and other games?
You make a character, but you don't have stats that you roll dice against.
Its all about role playing.
> 2) A plot.
> 3) A name which will be remembered when speaking to others.
>
Sure. These I agree with.
> #1 is pretty self explanatory. It also rules out most every game that I'd
> classify as an Adventure game. However, I concede that the two genres have
> similarities, which is no doubt why I enjoy them both. =)
>
Since I disagree with your number 1, I will say that instead you
need a way to manipulate the world in meaningful ways, and that you need
options to play a character and have different results from your actions
depending on your character. This still rules out adventure games, which
are pretty linear as a whole (som of the Tex Murphy games ar an
exception).
Led Mirage
<brob...@moses.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> I really think this is missing the point. Strategy games are
>fundamentally different from RPGs. Look at Rages of Mages, a game very
>similar to Diablo. Most people considered it to be more RTS than RPG.
>But it was not too popular so no one ever got hot and bothered over people
>not calling it an RPG. Diablo was very popular, and some want to say that
>it is an RPG, so we have these discussions.
I think if Diablo was a game set in a SF or modern setting, nobody
would bother to call it RPG. The only reason people call it RPG is
becuase it is set in a Medievalesque setting.
Led Mirage
<brob...@moses.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>on the world depending on how I play my character. In Diablo, the only
>choices you had were what you were wielding and how you spent your skill
>points. You couldn't decide to blow up the reactor or fix it (like you
>can in Fallout). You couldn't decide to try to make peace with the
>monsters in the dungeon with words. All the game consisted of was killing
>things. And killing things is not role playing.
You've just described the M&M series very well. So do you consider the
M&M series RPG? Or just a hack and slash game?
<GONZA>
> would bother to call it RPG. The only reason people call it RPG is
> becuase it is set in a Medievalesque setting.
A very simple, basic and straightforward reason: Blizzard initially called it
an RPG,
followed by gaming magazines and sites. If Blizzard were to have called it an
action
game, people would now argue, that it is not an action but rather an arcade.
Nowadays, EVERY SINGLE GAME is a mix of genres. Simply because it makes
the experience richer.
Regards,
Gonza.
Markus Mokkanen
>I have quite a bit of experience with P&P RPGs, so my opinion on what
>constitutes a CRPG is based on that. I see three elements needed to be a CRPG.
>
>1) Character or characters with statistics which can be improved over time.
>
>2) A plot.
If you mean a story with a plot, do you think NetHack or ADOM are
roleplaying games? They don't really have any meaningful story.
Brian H.
In System Shock 2, I don't want to kill things. I like annelids :) But
if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
In Diablo, I think those critters are cute; even Diablo itself is
cute. But if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
In BG, I think those wolves are cute; those bears are cute; even
Saverok is cute. But if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
In FallOut2, I think the geckos are cute; the aliens are cute; and even
Frank Horrigan is cute. But if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
***BIG SIGH***
I know that roleplaying is not meant to kill things... but... I can't
finish the games if I don't kill them!!! =)
In article <855c7...@news2.newsguy.com>,
Brian Robinson <brob...@moses.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> Andreas Philipp <1085...@online.de> wrote:
> > Why do you always try to put games into certain genres? That's
ridiculous!
> >
> The problem comes when I want to know what kind of game I'm
> getting. If I don't like action games, I won't like Diablo, because
its
> basically a shoot 'em up. If I'm looking for an RPG, I'm thinking
about a
> game where I can get involved in interesting situations and have an
effect
> on the world depending on how I play my character. In Diablo, the
only
> choices you had were what you were wielding and how you spent your
skill
> points. You couldn't decide to blow up the reactor or fix it (like
you
> can in Fallout). You couldn't decide to try to make peace with the
> monsters in the dungeon with words. All the game consisted of was
killing
> things. And killing things is not role playing.
>
> --
> Brian Robinson
> brob...@ist.ucf.edu
> Institute for Simulation and Training
>
--
Brian.
Human beings can send to bh1234...@nospam.please.ctimail.com.
Spammers can send to bh1...@my-deja.com because I never use it.
who...@wherever.com
: If you mean a story with a plot, do you think NetHack or ADOM are
: roleplaying games? They don't really have any meaningful story.
Of course. Why shouldn't they be?
ADOM has a plot and a bunch of subquests last time I played.
Brian Robinson
>>All the game consisted of was killing
>>things. And killing things is not role playing.
> You've just described the M&M series very well. So do you consider the
> M&M series RPG? Or just a hack and slash game?
>
I haven't played any of the Might and Magic games. But if they
are similar to Diablo, then I would not consider them RPGs.
Brian Robinson
>> I think if Diablo was a game set in a SF or modern setting, nobody
>> would bother to call it RPG. The only reason people call it RPG is
>> becuase it is set in a Medievalesque setting.
> A very simple, basic and straightforward reason: Blizzard initially called it
> an RPG,
>
False. When Diablo came out, Blizzard refused to put a genre to
it because they didn't want to get into debates such as this. People just
assumed it was an RPG because it was in a fantasy setting like the above
poster points out.
Brian Robinson
>>I have quite a bit of experience with P&P RPGs, so my opinion on what
>>constitutes a CRPG is based on that. I see three elements needed to be a CRPG.
>>
>>1) Character or characters with statistics which can be improved over time.
>>
>>2) A plot.
> If you mean a story with a plot, do you think NetHack or ADOM are
> roleplaying games? They don't really have any meaningful story.
>
I think the Roguelike games in general are not RPGs. There's
really not much role playing there. Diablo is basically just a real time
RL. They have their own genre which could also be called hack and slash.
--
Markus Mokkanen
>YEAARRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!! I AM CONFUSED!!!!!!
(snip)
>In FallOut2, I think the geckos are cute; the aliens are cute; and even
>Frank Horrigan is cute. But if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
Hmm, I remember some ppeople saying that they were able to play
Fallout, or was it Fallout 2, without killing anyone, at least
personally.
Markus Mokkanen
>Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> wrote:
>: If you mean a story with a plot, do you think NetHack or ADOM are
>: roleplaying games? They don't really have any meaningful story.
>
>Of course. Why shouldn't they be?
>
>ADOM has a plot and a bunch of subquests last time I played.
Well, you said this: "Some might claim that #2 is present in almost
every computer game. Please! I enjoy HOMM3, but just because it
gives you a blurb for the scenario which tells you why you're
supposedly fighting, that is NOT a plot."
Is the "plot" in NetHack or ADOM really any better than that? In
NetHack you are supposed to get some artifact or something (Amulet of
Yendor? I don't remember anymore) from some place, and that's it.
I personally don't think a game can't be a CRPG without a plot. It can
make a CRPG a better game though, like apparently is with Planescape.
Markus Mokkanen
>> If you mean a story with a plot, do you think NetHack or ADOM are
>> roleplaying games? They don't really have any meaningful story.
>>
> I think the Roguelike games in general are not RPGs. There's
>really not much role playing there.
I disagree. You are playing a role in e.g. Nethack or ADOM which
heavily depends on what kind of character you have, and developing
your character is also crucial part of the game, which IMHO is the
most important part in a CRPG.
I don't know what you mean by role playing anyway. You mean that there
must be some predefined character with its own background story, like
in adventure games like Grim Fandango, Gabriel Knight etc.? They are
not roleplaying games though, but adventure games.
Mils
Well we need to classify things so that we know to which newsgroups we
need to post to ? :p
Moa Dragon
Brian Robinson
> In Diablo, I think those critters are cute; even Diablo itself is
> cute. But if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
> In FallOut2, I think the geckos are cute; the aliens are cute; and even
> Frank Horrigan is cute. But if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
>
Okay, I never finished Fallout 2 due to the bugs. But I know that
you can finish Fallout 1 without ever firing a shot or attacking anyone
because I have done that. I believe the same is true of Fallout 2 except
I couldn't try it because of all the bugs.
Diablo, on the other hand, requires you to kill things. In fact,
THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO DO. In Fallout and real RPGs, you do things
other than killing. Often you are involved in conflict and if you chose
there may be fighting or killing. However, a game where you just kill
things and do nothing else is basically an action game.
kon...@bigfoot.com
How about comparing Diablo to Crusader No Remorse?
That's how I see Diablo.
Regards
KTY
In article <85695...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> --
> Brian Robinson
> brob...@ist.ucf.edu
> Institute for Simulation and Training
>
Peter Knutsen
Markus Mokkanen wrote:
> If you mean a story with a plot, do you think NetHack or ADOM are
> roleplaying games? They don't really have any meaningful story.
NetHack is *not* a CRPG or a roleplaying game or anything like that.
The person who wrote NetHack never said it was a roleplaying game.
It is a rogue-like computergame which is an entirely different
category.
I'm not familiar with ADOM, but it's discussed much in newsgroups
that deals with roguelike computergames. I'll guess it's a rogue-
like with a few roleplaying-like elements.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peter Knutsen
Brian Robinson wrote:
>
> I disagree. While there is no harm in having this sort of system,
> it is not required to have an RPG. You say you're familiat with pen and
> paper RPGs; how about diceless roleplaying, like Amber and other games?
> You make a character, but you don't have stats that you roll dice against.
> Its all about role playing.
Amber *does* have statistics. Each character has ratings for Warfare,
Psyche, and a couple of other statistics as well as some advantages,
perhaps also disadvantages ands kills.
Amber also has *rules*. The *only* thing it lacks is random factors.
Sure, you *can* have statistics-less roleplaying (but it's more
common to roleplay with statistics, but ignore them totally -
not that I'd ever play in such a way), and you can also have
rules-less roleplaying, but Amber is neither.
> Michael <think...@aol.comspamless> wrote:
> > #1 is pretty self explanatory. It also rules out most every game that I'd
> > classify as an Adventure game. However, I concede that the two genres have
> > similarities, which is no doubt why I enjoy them both. =)
The way I'd discern between adventures and CRPG's is that an
adventure computergame does scripting, a CRPG does simulation.
--
Peter Knutsen
Peacedog1
>If you mean a story with a plot, do you think NetHack or ADOM are
>roleplaying games? They don't really have any meaningful story.
>
I disagree, ADOM has a story. One that is more interesting than Diablo (which
had an interesting premise that barely showed up in the actual game). One
reason I am looking forward to D2 is that they are supposed to be doing a
better job with the in game story and environment.
who...@wherever.com
: Is the "plot" in NetHack or ADOM really any better than that? In
: NetHack you are supposed to get some artifact or something (Amulet of
: Yendor? I don't remember anymore) from some place, and that's it.
Have you played ADOM? It has a lot more plot than Nethack; about as much
as the earliest Ultima's. In my opinion, a game where the only solution
for solving problems is combat (and a lot of it), is still an RPG. If the
chosen characters' skills and statistics, not YOUR style and "statistics",
determine the style you play the game, it is quite probably a (C)RPG.
If the number of characters you control is greater than a handful and
managing them becomes a big part of the game, then it's more likely a
strategy game.. but it's still a pretty good definition IMHO. :)
Peter Knutsen
who...@wherever.com wrote:
>
> Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Is the "plot" in NetHack or ADOM really any better than that? In
> : NetHack you are supposed to get some artifact or something (Amulet of
> : Yendor? I don't remember anymore) from some place, and that's it.
>
> Have you played ADOM? It has a lot more plot than Nethack; about as much
> as the earliest Ultima's. In my opinion, a game where the only solution
> for solving problems is combat (and a lot of it), is still an RPG. If the
I disagree with this.
> chosen characters' skills and statistics, not YOUR style and "statistics",
> determine the style you play the game, it is quite probably a (C)RPG.
> If the number of characters you control is greater than a handful and
> managing them becomes a big part of the game, then it's more likely a
> strategy game.. but it's still a pretty good definition IMHO. :)
But otherwise I agree with your definition.
--
Peter Knutsen
Markus Mokkanen
>Markus Mokkanen wrote:
>
>> If you mean a story with a plot, do you think NetHack or ADOM are
>> roleplaying games? They don't really have any meaningful story.
>
>NetHack is *not* a CRPG or a roleplaying game or anything like that.
Why not? Is Ultima (I) a CRPG? Daggerfall? Darklands? If they are,
then why NetHack or ADOM are not?
>The person who wrote NetHack never said it was a roleplaying game.
I don't know what you are talking about, because I think there were
several persons writing NetHack. That's why it is called NetHack: it
was developed as a joint effort on the net.
What did "he" call it then?
>It is a rogue-like computergame which is an entirely different
>category.
"Rogue-like games" are CRPGs, just like "Quake-like games" are action
games.
>I'm not familiar with ADOM, but it's discussed much in newsgroups
>that deals with roguelike computergames. I'll guess it's a rogue-
>like with a few roleplaying-like elements.
What ARE "roleplaying elements"? Story certainly is not, because then
most adventure games or even Starcraft or Half-life would have
roleplaying elements, because they have a story also.
CRPGs are about choosing and developing a character or party of
characters with certain skills, and the gameplay is affected by those
skills you have chosen and developed. This applies to both NetHack and
ADOM, thus they certainly are CRPGs. I would even say they are CRPGs
in their purest form, because they have no action gaming elements,
they have no real strategic combat system, and they don't have a story
that would restrict player's choices on how to play the game.
Markus Mokkanen
>Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> wrote:
>
>: Is the "plot" in NetHack or ADOM really any better than that? In
>: NetHack you are supposed to get some artifact or something (Amulet of
>: Yendor? I don't remember anymore) from some place, and that's it.
>
>Have you played ADOM?
Yes, but I am not that far in it yet. I restarted it at some point
because I wanted to try another kind of character.
>It has a lot more plot than Nethack;
I couldn't really say. All I've seen so far is that the game is
basically a collection of sub quests. Mind you, I don't think that as
an disadvantage, because I like ADOM quite much.
>about as much
>as the earliest Ultima's.
Well that isn't saying much, is it? :)
All I was arguing was that if a deep story/plot is really needed for a
CRPG, before it can be called a CRPG. I think not. ADOM and NetHack
are in my opinion CRPGs, although they have next to no real story,
anymore than e.g. Doom or Quake. You could actually say the same about
those earlier Ultimas.
ADOM is a CRPG not because of its (non-existent) story, but because
you have a character whose abilities you are developing during the
game, and how your character is affects the gameplay. That is the real
essence of CRPGs IMHO.
Markus Mokkanen
>>From: Markus Mokkanen mma...@hopmail.com
>
>>If you mean a story with a plot, do you think NetHack or ADOM are
>>roleplaying games? They don't really have any meaningful story.
>>
>
>I disagree, ADOM has a story. One that is more interesting than Diablo (which
What story? I am not that far in the game yet, but so far I haven't
seen much of a real story. So far it seems like a bunch of sub quests
to me. "Please kill the villains outside the town", "Please find my
cat who is lost in the dungeons", "Please find/kill the mad sorcerer
in the other dungeon" etc.
When I talk about a story, I mean a deep story like in Starcraft/Brood
War, Grim Fandango, Final Fantasy 7, Xenogears etc. Not a small
background story like in Doom "you are a marine who went to see what
is wrong in the base", which is more like an excuse for the game's
existence and all the killing.
Of course, if I find later in ADOM that there is an involving story in
there that makes me pounder about my character's background etc., then
you are right. But so far no sign of such thing yet.
Mind you, I personally do not think a CRPG must have a real story
before it can be called a CRPG. That is why I think NetHack and ADOM
are CRPGs, in fact they are CRPGs in their purest form probably.
Brian Robinson
>> I disagree. While there is no harm in having this sort of system,
>> it is not required to have an RPG. You say you're familiat with pen and
>> paper RPGs; how about diceless roleplaying, like Amber and other games?
>> You make a character, but you don't have stats that you roll dice against.
>> Its all about role playing.
> Amber *does* have statistics. Each character has ratings for Warfare,
> Psyche, and a couple of other statistics as well as some advantages,
> perhaps also disadvantages ands kills.
>
Oops. I haven't played the game, but when it was described to me
I thought they said it had no statistics. However, I still stand by the
idea that statistics are not neccasary for RPGs.
Brian Robinson
> How about comparing Diablo to Crusader No Remorse?
> That's how I see Diablo.
>
I actually bought one of those games ut could never get it to run
on my computer. I did play the demo, however, and it seemed to be a
purely action game to me.
--
Brian Robinson
> All I was arguing was that if a deep story/plot is really needed for a
> CRPG, before it can be called a CRPG. I think not. ADOM and NetHack
> are in my opinion CRPGs, although they have next to no real story,
> anymore than e.g. Doom or Quake. You could actually say the same about
> those earlier Ultimas.
>
would be RPGs?
> ADOM is a CRPG not because of its (non-existent) story, but because
> you have a character whose abilities you are developing during the
> game, and how your character is affects the gameplay. That is the real
> essence of CRPGs IMHO.
>
The real essence of RPGs in NOT building levels. That's an effect
of the old role playing systems the are used to model modern games. This
is the most ridiculous definition of RPGs I've ever seen. Again, I could
make a tank game where you had statistics and they got better as you
progressed, but the whole game would be shooting things, and by your
definition, this would be an RPG.
Brian Robinson
> "Rogue-like games" are CRPGs, just like "Quake-like games" are action
> games.
>
seperate genre. Check out the rec.games.roguelike.* heirarchy for more
information. Calling a game Quake like does not have the same connotation
as calling a game Roguelike because one is a comparison and the other is a
genre.
> What ARE "roleplaying elements"? Story certainly is not, because then
> most adventure games or even Starcraft or Half-life would have
> roleplaying elements, because they have a story also.
>
What!? This is ridiculous logic? What are the components of a
cat? Well, legs certainly are not because humans and lizards and buffalo
would all be cats. Not valid at all. Story is an element of RPGs, just
not an element that is present in only RPGs.
> CRPGs are about choosing and developing a character or party of
> characters with certain skills, and the gameplay is affected by those
> skills you have chosen and developed.
>
They often are, but that's not the only way they could be. If you
took an FPS with not stats or levels, but added a bunch of NPCs and the
ability to make an impact in the game world, that would be an RPG. It
might not be everybody's favorite, but it would qualify.
Led Mirage
<brob...@moses.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> Hmm. By this logic then if Doom or Quake had stats then they
>would be RPGs?
Well, the Heretic/Hexen series has stats for the main character. An
Inventory, too! I doubt anyone would call those RPGs.
kon...@bigfoot.com
does have some stats which you can improve over time. And it does not
pretend to be anything else besides being an action game.
So if you do not like a reflex-challenging game, avoid it. I did not
and well, I got bored halfway through. Hack hack, slash slash. Slept
on computer instead. Got some keyboard markings on my face instead
(all right, this part is untrue......)
Regards
KTY
In article <85ad0...@news2.newsguy.com>,
Brian Robinson <brob...@moses.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> kon...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> > How about comparing Diablo to Crusader No Remorse?
>
> > That's how I see Diablo.
> >
> I actually bought one of those games ut could never get it to
run
> on my computer. I did play the demo, however, and it seemed to be a
> purely action game to me.
>
> --
> Brian Robinson
> brob...@ist.ucf.edu
> Institute for Simulation and Training
>
don
Led Mirage wrote:
> Well, the Heretic/Hexen series has stats for the main character. An
> Inventory, too! I doubt anyone would call those RPGs.
Hexen has more RPG elements than Heretic does because you get to choose
your character class, and the game play is somewhat different for each
class. It's still an action game though. I always thought the quest
type elements were more like an adventure game than an RPG. Find the
mask, take the mask, put the mask here to open a new area.....
Markus Mokkanen
>Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> wrote:
>> All I was arguing was that if a deep story/plot is really needed for a
>> CRPG, before it can be called a CRPG. I think not. ADOM and NetHack
>> are in my opinion CRPGs, although they have next to no real story,
>> anymore than e.g. Doom or Quake. You could actually say the same about
>> those earlier Ultimas.
>>
> Hmm. By this logic then if Doom or Quake had stats then they
>would be RPGs?
Depends how big part of the game developing the skills (deciding which
skills to develop etc.) would be, and possibly giving options how to
handle different situations with those skills. And if action still
would be big part of the gameplay, it would be a hybrid, action-RPG,
not a pure RPG.
Doom or Quake with stats: that would be Ultima Underworld 1-2 or
System Shock 2. Many people consider them to be at least partly RPG
games.
>> ADOM is a CRPG not because of its (non-existent) story, but because
>> you have a character whose abilities you are developing during the
>> game, and how your character is affects the gameplay. That is the real
>> essence of CRPGs IMHO.
>>
> The real essence of RPGs in NOT building levels.
I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT BUILDING LEVELS. I was talking about developing
skills for your character or party and being able to decide how to
play the game. Fallout is a good example of this too, you can choose
how to handle the big baddie depending on the skills you have
developed for you character (you can even choose to talk him out of
his plans if you have developed good conversation skills or charm).
>That's an effect
>of the old role playing systems the are used to model modern games. This
>is the most ridiculous definition of RPGs I've ever seen. Again, I could
It is nowhere as ridiculous as saying that a story makes a RPG. So
what is YOUR definition for a RPG? For example what makes Baldur's
Gate, Fallout, Planescape, Ultima 1 and Wizardy Gold RPGs, but not
Black Dahlia, Grim Fandango, Realms of Haunting, Sanitarium etc.?
>make a tank game where you had statistics and they got better as you
>progressed, but the whole game would be shooting things, and by your
>definition, this would be an RPG.
Don't put words in my mouth. If the game would still be just about
shooting things, then it would still be a shooter, albeit maybe with
some RPG qualities.
Since you can't apparently read, I said two things that invalidate
your example: I said you are developing (and CHOOSING what skills to
develop) of a _character_ or party of characters (unless you want to
play a life of a tank), and you can choose how to handle different
situations in the game. Your tank example doesn't meet either
requirement.
So lets hear it: what is your definition for a RPG?
Markus Mokkanen
>On 9 Jan 2000 16:32:23 GMT, Brian Robinson
><brob...@moses.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> Hmm. By this logic then if Doom or Quake had stats then they
>>would be RPGs?
>
>Well, the Heretic/Hexen series has stats for the main character. An
>Inventory, too! I doubt anyone would call those RPGs.
Hey so does Ultima Underworld 1-2! And System Shock 2! And many people
consider them to be RPGs.
I don't remember if you actually develop any skills in Heretic/Hexen
(I don't remember such in at least Heretic, but it was years when I
played it), but still even if you did, 99% of the gameplay is still
shooting action, which at best would make them first person shooters
with light RPG overtones. Just like Castlevania: SOTN is not a RPG
either, but a platform jumping action game with some very light RPG
overtones.
In a (pure) RPG your success in the game depends on the skills of your
character or characters you have created and developed, not on your
action game skills. That's why Hexen and Heretic are action games.
So again, lets also hear your perfect definition for a RPG. Story? So
if you add a story in Doom, that would make it a RPG, right? Hey, that
makes Half-life a RPG. Knew it.
Markus Mokkanen
>Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> wrote:
>> "Rogue-like games" are CRPGs, just like "Quake-like games" are action
>> games.
>>
> Actually, you're wrong here again. Roguelike games are their own
>seperate genre. Check out the rec.games.roguelike.* heirarchy for more
>information.
There is also hierarchy for Quake games, so you have proven nothing.
>Calling a game Quake like does not have the same connotation
>as calling a game Roguelike because one is a comparison and the other is a
>genre.
You are wrong. When you say a game is Quake like, you are comparing it
to Quake. When you say a game is Rogue like, you are comparing it to
(drum roll) Rogue. There's no difference in those comparisons.
If Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Ultima Underworld or Ultima 1 used ASCII
characters, you would probably call them rogue like games.
>
>> What ARE "roleplaying elements"? Story certainly is not, because then
>> most adventure games or even Starcraft or Half-life would have
>> roleplaying elements, because they have a story also.
>>
> What!? This is ridiculous logic?
Ah, I just saw someone else claiming that because non-RPG games could
have skill system too, means that RPG doesn't need to have any skills
or attributes.
>cat? Well, legs certainly are not because humans and lizards and buffalo
>would all be cats. Not valid at all. Story is an element of RPGs, just
>not an element that is present in only RPGs.
Story is NOT NEEDED for a RPG. Ultima Online, does it have a story?
Are Ultima 1-3 not CRPGs because their story is not any deeper than
that of Doom or Quake? Could you elaborate why a game can't be a RPG
without a story?
>> CRPGs are about choosing and developing a character or party of
>> characters with certain skills, and the gameplay is affected by those
>> skills you have chosen and developed.
>>
> They often are, but that's not the only way they could be. If you
>took an FPS with not stats or levels, but added a bunch of NPCs and the
>ability to make an impact in the game world, that would be an RPG. It
How is "making an impact" on the gameworld either a definition of RPG?
What kind of impact? You don't do much of impact in any Ultima games,
so they are not RPGs?
On the other hand you can have a great impact on the gameworld in many
adventure games, strategy games, flight combat sims, god sims etc.
>might not be everybody's favorite, but it would qualify.
Not necessarily.
don
Markus Mokkanen wrote:
>
> lmi...@yahoo.com (Led Mirage) wrote:
> >Well, the Heretic/Hexen series has stats for the main character. An
> >Inventory, too! I doubt anyone would call those RPGs.
>
> Hey so does Ultima Underworld 1-2! And System Shock 2! And many people
> consider them to be RPGs.
>
> I don't remember if you actually develop any skills in Heretic/Hexen
> (I don't remember such in at least Heretic, but it was years when I
> played it), but still even if you did, 99% of the gameplay is still
> shooting action, which at best would make them first person shooters
> with light RPG overtones.
In Hexen, the different characters are given different stats at the
beginning. For example, the Fighter is assigned the stats of speed 10,
armor 10, magic 1, and strength 10, but these have almost no bearing on
the gameplay and except for armor can't be improved during the game.
What they do mean is that the Fighter is strong enough to go head to
head with his enemies while the Mage must keep his distance and use
projectile type weapons. The only stats which change during the game
are health points and armor just like most other first person shooters.
Feywood
wrote:
>Doom or Quake with stats: that would be Ultima Underworld 1-2 or
>System Shock 2. Many people consider them to be at least partly RPG
>games.
You've been smoking something bad, haven't you, you naughty boy?
Underworld 1 and 2 are absolutely *nothing* like "Doom with stats".
I'll guarantee that UUW 1 and 2 are recognised as completely RPG in
nature by *anyone* who has actually played them, which I'm assuming
you haven't.
Not only are those two games still the best first-person fantasy-based
RPGs available, they're also two of the best RPGs period, especially
in terms of character interaction, multiple solutions to the various
game situations (as Fallout would expand on later), and most
favourably, the significant departure from the ceaseless
hack-and-slash nature of nearly all of the other first-person fantasy
"RPGs" (Gold Box, Wizardry, M&M, Bard's Tale, etc.).
Feywood
Brian Robinson
>>Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Rogue-like games" are CRPGs, just like "Quake-like games" are action
>>> games.
>>>
>> Actually, you're wrong here again. Roguelike games are their own
>>seperate genre. Check out the rec.games.roguelike.* heirarchy for more
>>information.
> There is also hierarchy for Quake games, so you have proven nothing.
>
Jesus. I wasn't using the HEIRARCHY as my proof. I said you
should read those groups to get a better idea of what Rougelike games are
about.
>>Calling a game Quake like does not have the same connotation
>>as calling a game Roguelike because one is a comparison and the other is a
>>genre.
> You are wrong. When you say a game is Quake like, you are comparing it
> to Quake. When you say a game is Rogue like, you are comparing it to
> (drum roll) Rogue. There's no difference in those comparisons.
>
Listen. You don't know what you're talking about. I can see its
an honest mistake, but you have to understand that the term Roguelike has
grown beyond the exact meaning of those words. For those people that play
Roguelike games, it means a lot more to say that a game is Roguelike than
it means to say that it is like Rogue. Its an unfortunate name for people
who are not familiar with the genre because it is deceiving. But it
really has different connotations than calling something xxx-like. That's
why I suggested you check out the RL newsgroups.
> If Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Ultima Underworld or Ultima 1 used ASCII
> characters, you would probably call them rogue like games.
>
Nope.
>>cat? Well, legs certainly are not because humans and lizards and buffalo
>>would all be cats. Not valid at all. Story is an element of RPGs, just
>>not an element that is present in only RPGs.
> Story is NOT NEEDED for a RPG. Ultima Online, does it have a story?
> Are Ultima 1-3 not CRPGs because their story is not any deeper than
> that of Doom or Quake? Could you elaborate why a game can't be a RPG
> without a story?
>
If there is no story, there's no way for you to manifest the
character you are attempting to role play within the game. In Ultima 1-3,
there was no story, and they really aren't RPGs by today's standards. You
didn't play a role, you just moved around and killed things. Ultima
Online I haven't played so I can't comment on it.
>>> CRPGs are about choosing and developing a character or party of
>>> characters with certain skills, and the gameplay is affected by those
>>> skills you have chosen and developed.
>>>
>> They often are, but that's not the only way they could be. If you
>>took an FPS with not stats or levels, but added a bunch of NPCs and the
>>ability to make an impact in the game world, that would be an RPG. It
> How is "making an impact" on the gameworld either a definition of RPG?
> What kind of impact? You don't do much of impact in any Ultima games,
> so they are not RPGs?
>
You don't make much of an impact in Ultima 1-3. In 4, you role
play a person who is striving to become the avatar, and you have to have
you character act in certain ways. You give to the poor, stay in battles
rather than run, etc. In 5 the goal is not as lofty, but there are still
a number of quests for you to participate in, and plenty of character
interaction. In 6, you initially think the gargoyles are your enemies,
and then you gradually learn they are just misunderstood. There are also
lots of different quests to do, some with different outcomes. You can
even kill everyone with the Armageddon spell. I never got far in 7 or 8,
and haven't played 9, so I won't comment on those.
> On the other hand you can have a great impact on the gameworld in many
> adventure games, strategy games, flight combat sims, god sims etc.
>
By impact, I don't mean shooting things. I mean altering the
lives of fictional people. sorry I wasn't clear.
Brian Robinson
>>> CRPG, before it can be called a CRPG. I think not. ADOM and NetHack
>>> are in my opinion CRPGs, although they have next to no real story,
>>> anymore than e.g. Doom or Quake. You could actually say the same about
>>> those earlier Ultimas.
>>>
>>would be RPGs?
> Depends how big part of the game developing the skills (deciding which
> skills to develop etc.) would be, and possibly giving options how to
> handle different situations with those skills. And if action still
> would be big part of the gameplay, it would be a hybrid, action-RPG,
> not a pure RPG.
>
Well, you're saying games like Nethack and Angband are RPGs even
though they are much closer to action games. Make Angband real time and
it would just be an overhead perspective shooter. Its really not an RPG.
> Doom or Quake with stats: that would be Ultima Underworld 1-2 or
> System Shock 2. Many people consider them to be at least partly RPG
> games.
>
From my recollection of UW1 it was RPGish, with a few different
alternatives in the types of actions you could take, but not a full
fledged RPG. SS2 I haven't played.
>>> ADOM is a CRPG not because of its (non-existent) story, but because
>>> you have a character whose abilities you are developing during the
>>> game, and how your character is affects the gameplay. That is the real
>>> essence of CRPGs IMHO.
>>>
>> The real essence of RPGs in NOT building levels.
> I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT BUILDING LEVELS. I was talking about developing
> skills for your character or party and being able to decide how to
> play the game.
>
Your definition of gameplay is too broad, though. I don't think
building abilities to give you different ways to shoot things is part of
role playing. Its part of a rewards system that good games offer to keep
you interested, but its not part of what makes RPGs what they are.
> Fallout is a good example of this too, you can choose
> how to handle the big baddie depending on the skills you have
> developed for you character (you can even choose to talk him out of
> his plans if you have developed good conversation skills or charm).
>
I agree here. Fallout is an RPG. But just because it has
elements that are similar ot other games does not mean those games are
also RPGs. See my comment about cats and legs in another post.
> It is nowhere as ridiculous as saying that a story makes a RPG. So
> what is YOUR definition for a RPG? For example what makes Baldur's
> Gate, Fallout, Planescape, Ultima 1 and Wizardy Gold RPGs, but not
> Black Dahlia, Grim Fandango, Realms of Haunting, Sanitarium etc.?
>
I didn't say a story "makes" an RPG. However, if there is no
story, what choices can you possibly make? Where is the role playing? It
doesn't even have to be a story in the sense that its the point of the
game. Take Fallout and remove the water shortage and the Master and it
would still be an RPG, because there are smaller stories there where you
get a chance to role play.
>>make a tank game where you had statistics and they got better as you
>>progressed, but the whole game would be shooting things, and by your
>>definition, this would be an RPG.
> Don't put words in my mouth. If the game would still be just about
> shooting things, then it would still be a shooter, albeit maybe with
> some RPG qualities.
>
So Diablo is a shooter. Stats are not RPG qualities.
> Since you can't apparently read, I said two things that invalidate
> your example: I said you are developing (and CHOOSING what skills to
> develop) of a _character_ or party of characters (unless you want to
> play a life of a tank), and you can choose how to handle different
> situations in the game. Your tank example doesn't meet either
> requirement.
>
The tank example is showing that Diablo is not an RPG. Don't even
try to say that Diablo is an RPG only because you play a person and not a
tank.
> So lets hear it: what is your definition for a RPG?
>
An RPG is a game where you control a character and make decisions
for him in an arbitrary game world. The decisions need to be meaningful
(for instance, if an NPC asks you a yes or no question, your responce
should change the situation to some degree). The actions your character
takes should be more complex than just shooting (or hitting or otherwise
killing) things. This is because just killing things doesn't allow you to
generate a personality for your character, at least in the game. Killing
in RPGs is fine, as long as it is not the only element of the game. For
instance, if Fallout had a long section in the middle where you just
killed things for a few hours, but otherwise was the same, it would still
be an RPG.
John R. Chapman
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Peter Knutsen wrote:
> Markus Mokkanen wrote:
>
> > If you mean a story with a plot, do you think NetHack or ADOM are
> > roleplaying games? They don't really have any meaningful story.
>
> NetHack is *not* a CRPG or a roleplaying game or anything like that.
> The person who wrote NetHack never said it was a roleplaying game.
> It is a rogue-like computergame which is an entirely different
> category.
>
> I'm not familiar with ADOM, but it's discussed much in newsgroups
> that deals with roguelike computergames. I'll guess it's a rogue-
> like with a few roleplaying-like elements.
>
> --
> Peter Knutsen
BZZT! Go lurk in some of the roguelike newsgroups. Many people post
narrative descriptions of their games, or parts of their games. Roguelikes
put you into your "role" better than almost any other game type out
there! If you've played the game any at all, you feel for the person's
dialogue. And the game they played, while it had similar elements to
each of your games, was different.
Saves and reloads? What's THAT got to do with roleplaying!?! :-)
-john
PS: The Fallouts, and PS:T have the potential for that sort of post.
Anyone want to tell their story of getting out of the Morturary, and
not leaving a soul alive (or undead) inside? (Be sure to explain what
the character was thinking at the time. What PS:T needs is a walkthrough
for a Nameless One who's personality is identical to "the Paranoid One".
John R. Chapman
> lmi...@yahoo.com (Led Mirage) wrote:
>
> >On 9 Jan 2000 16:32:23 GMT, Brian Robinson
> ><brob...@moses.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hmm. By this logic then if Doom or Quake had stats then they
> >>would be RPGs?
> >
> >Well, the Heretic/Hexen series has stats for the main character. An
> >Inventory, too! I doubt anyone would call those RPGs.
>
> Hey so does Ultima Underworld 1-2! And System Shock 2! And many people
> consider them to be RPGs.
>
System shock. It _doesn't_ have stats, but is definitely role playing.
The feeling of being "the Hacker" on Citadel station, and figuring out
how to proceed from there, is definitely reminicent of a good one on
one "pencil and paper" rpg.
-john
who...@wherever.com
: Well, you're saying games like Nethack and Angband are RPGs even
: though they are much closer to action games. Make Angband real time and
: it would just be an overhead perspective shooter. Its really not an RPG.
That's gotta be the silliest description of roguelike games ever.
The only thing Angband or any other roguelike has with action games is the
perspective.. and amount of combat. And if combat makes a game an action
game, guess that makes 95% of all games ever published action games.
What else can you do in Panzer Command, Jane's F-15 or Eye of Beholder?
Markus Mokkanen
>> >Well, the Heretic/Hexen series has stats for the main character. An
>> >Inventory, too! I doubt anyone would call those RPGs.
>>
>> Hey so does Ultima Underworld 1-2! And System Shock 2! And many people
>> consider them to be RPGs.
>>
>
>System shock. It _doesn't_ have stats, but is definitely role playing.
No it isn't. I always thought of it as an action adventure. On the
other hand, System Shock 2 and Ultima Underworld 1-2 are more like
CRPG (not pure CRPG, as they still depend much on your action gaming
skills too), because you got to choose what kind of character you are,
you develop those skills your character had and use those skills to
handle different situations.
For example in UUW if you happened to have good "search" skill, you
would find secret doors and locations more easily, having better
swimming skill let you swim faster and better, having better agility
let you have less damage when falling down etc.
System Shock (1) had nothing like that, that's why I never considered
it as a CRPG at all. System Shock 2 is a different matter, it is at
least partially a CRPG (there's still lots of action there too).
>The feeling of being "the Hacker" on Citadel station, and figuring out
>how to proceed from there, is definitely reminicent of a good one on
>one "pencil and paper" rpg.
By that definition, most adventure and action games are roleplaying
games: Grim Fandango, Sanitarium, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil 1-2,
Gabriel Knight 1-3, Monkey Island 1-3, Quake 2, Half-life, Shogo etc.
In my opinion your definition for a RPG is far too wide.
Markus Mokkanen
>On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:40:58 GMT, Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Doom or Quake with stats: that would be Ultima Underworld 1-2 or
>>System Shock 2. Many people consider them to be at least partly RPG
>>games.
>
>You've been smoking something bad, haven't you, you naughty boy?
>Underworld 1 and 2 are absolutely *nothing* like "Doom with stats".
They are "something" like Doom with stats and skills: you move around
in first person view, they include first person shooting, they do have
lots of action in there too (at least I fought e.g. those trees by
running in & hitting with a sword & retreating, exactly what I did in
Doom with fists against some imps or in Half-life with crowbar against
infected soldiers).
UUW _nothing_ like Doom? It certainly has much more in common with
Doom than e.g. Fallout. Even Dungeon Master and EOB do.
Anyway, UUW had much less emphasis on action than FPS games, and
because big part of the gameplay was choosing and developing your
skills and using them to your advantage, that is what made it a CRPG
in my mind.
>I'll guarantee that UUW 1 and 2 are recognised as completely RPG in
>nature by *anyone* who has actually played them, which I'm assuming
>you haven't.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have completed both, just as I have
completed System Shock. Ah, I so vividly remember in UUW running away
from the final 'demon' through the colored path with those bizarre
floating eyes and spirals everywhere...
And nowhere did I claim Ultima Underworld 1-2 are not CRPGs!!!
I just demonstrated with them that if you add skill system,
development of those skills etc. into a first person shooter, you
could easily end up with a game that is regarded as a CRPG. Just like
is the case with System Shock 2, UUW1-2, Lands of Lore 2 etc.
In fact, I see System Shock 2 and Half-life much more similar games
than e.g. System Shock 2 and Fallout. Half-life was somewhat departure
from earlier FPS games, and System Shock 2 went even further by adding
skill development system, ability to play the game as different kind
of characters which have different strengths etc.
All those who claim that my view that "choosing and developing a
character" is the essence of CRPGs is ridiculous, none of them have
not been able to come with even as good definition of CRPG, without me
being able to say that with their criterias games like Grim Fandango
and Tomb Raider are also CRPGs.
>Not only are those two games still the best first-person fantasy-based
>RPGs available, they're also two of the best RPGs period, especially
>in terms of character interaction, multiple solutions to the various
>game situations (as Fallout would expand on later), and most
>favourably, the significant departure from the ceaseless
>hack-and-slash nature of nearly all of the other first-person fantasy
>"RPGs" (Gold Box, Wizardry, M&M, Bard's Tale, etc.).
I see. So you don't consider Wizardy and Gold Box games to be (C)RPGs?
This is getting interesting.
And I already said that I never questioned whether UUW games are
CRPGs. I always thought they are, it was the other guy who claimed
"Doom with statistics" could never be considered to be CRPGs. :)
Markus Mokkanen
>The only thing Angband or any other roguelike has with action games is the
>perspective..
Huh? What is an action game perspective? I have seen 2D action games
like R-Type, 3D third person view action games like Croc and first
person view action games like Quake.
The perspective is not important on defining what is e.g. an adventure
game, action game or CRPG.
>and amount of combat.
Action games don't have to have any combat at all either, though. That
is many times the driving force in action and RPG games though,
probably because fear of death is supposed to add tension in those
games.
>And if combat makes a game an action
>game, guess that makes 95% of all games ever published action games.
>What else can you do in Panzer Command, Jane's F-15 or Eye of Beholder?
I agree. What makes an action game is that it is REALTIME, it has
usually simplified controls that don't obstruct action (compare e.g.
Doom to Ultima Underworld, Doom has much simpler controls and user
interface) and the game mostly depends on your reflexes and action
gaming skills.
Markus Mokkanen
>Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, you're wrong here again. Roguelike games are their own
>>>seperate genre. Check out the rec.games.roguelike.* heirarchy for more
>>>information.
>
>> There is also hierarchy for Quake games, so you have proven nothing.
>>
> Jesus. I wasn't using the HEIRARCHY as my proof. I said you
Seemed so.
>should read those groups to get a better idea of what Rougelike games are
>about.
Go to ask in Quake groups then what Quake-like games mean. I bet they
will say that e.g. R-Type is not a Quake-like game, but Half-life is.
>> You are wrong. When you say a game is Quake like, you are comparing it
>> to Quake. When you say a game is Rogue like, you are comparing it to
>> (drum roll) Rogue. There's no difference in those comparisons.
>>
> Listen. You don't know what you're talking about. I can see its
>an honest mistake, but you have to understand that the term Roguelike has
>grown beyond the exact meaning of those words. For those people that play
Don't patronize me, because you seem to know exactly nothing.
Rogue-like game means exactly that: a game that resembles the
grand-daddy of games like NetHack and ADOM, namely Rogue. There is no
magic in that word, that is all it means.
It has the same meaning as Quake-like games, also known as first
person shooters. FPS games are a subgenre of action games, just like
"roguelike games" are a subgenre of CRPG.
>Roguelike games, it means a lot more to say that a game is Roguelike than
>it means to say that it is like Rogue. Its an unfortunate name for people
>who are not familiar with the genre because it is deceiving. But it
Brian, answer this simple question, since you claim to be an expert on
the subject: if "roguelike" does not mean a game which resembles
Rogue, then what exactly does it mean?
>really has different connotations than calling something xxx-like. That's
>why I suggested you check out the RL newsgroups.
No, you suggested that only because you don't know the answer to that
either, because you made up that argument. If you knew it, you would
have already defined it yourself.
>> Story is NOT NEEDED for a RPG. Ultima Online, does it have a story?
>> Are Ultima 1-3 not CRPGs because their story is not any deeper than
>> that of Doom or Quake? Could you elaborate why a game can't be a RPG
>> without a story?
>>
> If there is no story, there's no way for you to manifest the
>character you are attempting to role play within the game. In Ultima 1-3,
>there was no story, and they really aren't RPGs by today's standards.
What? Definition of certain genres don't change just like that. If
Ultima 3 was considered to be a CRPG in the eighties, it is considered
that to be even today.
Same way like Q-bert is considered to be an action game even today,
and Zork 1 or Colossal Cave are still considered to be adventure
games, even if they don't have stories comparable to Gabriel Knight 2
or Grim Fandango stories.
>You
>didn't play a role, you just moved around and killed things.
There was more than that, and yes it was considered to be a RPG, and
is considered to be even today. Very simple RPG by today's standards,
but RPG nonetheless.
>Ultima
>Online I haven't played so I can't comment on it.
Thought as much.
>> How is "making an impact" on the gameworld either a definition of RPG?
>> What kind of impact? You don't do much of impact in any Ultima games,
>> so they are not RPGs?
>>
> You don't make much of an impact in Ultima 1-3. In 4, you role
>play a person who is striving to become the avatar, and you have to have
>you character act in certain ways. You give to the poor, stay in battles
>rather than run, etc. In 5 the goal is not as lofty, but there are still
>a number of quests for you to participate in, and plenty of character
>interaction.
Just like in LucasArts adventure games.
>In 6, you initially think the gargoyles are your enemies,
>and then you gradually learn they are just misunderstood.
Happens also in many adventure games, and in Half-life (action game)
you first think the marines are out to save you and other employees,
but they were just misunderstood by you lot. :)
>> On the other hand you can have a great impact on the gameworld in many
>> adventure games, strategy games, flight combat sims, god sims etc.
>>
> By impact, I don't mean shooting things. I mean altering the
>lives of fictional people. sorry I wasn't clear.
That happens in lots of adventure games. Sorry you didn't comprehend
me first time.
Markus Mokkanen
>Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hmm. By this logic then if Doom or Quake had stats then they
>>>would be RPGs?
>
>> Depends how big part of the game developing the skills (deciding which
>> skills to develop etc.) would be, and possibly giving options how to
>> handle different situations with those skills. And if action still
>> would be big part of the gameplay, it would be a hybrid, action-RPG,
>> not a pure RPG.
>>
> Well, you're saying games like Nethack and Angband are RPGs even
>though they are much closer to action games.
Say what? They are not action games at all. What gives you that
assumption?
>Make Angband real time and
>it would just be an overhead perspective shooter.
Free clue: all action games ARE realtime games. Show me one action
game which isn't. They need to be realtime games because action games
by definition have action and demand at least some kind of reflexes.
Angbang, Nethack or ADOM don't require reflexes at all, because they
are turn-based. Thus they is no way they could be considered to be
even partially action games.
And even if they were realtime, hardly any action games have such a
wealth of gameplay options, development of character and use of items
etc., because they would interfere with the _action_ (the important
word here).
>Its really not an RPG.
Why not? Because if you made it realtime, "it would be action game"?
If aunt had balls.. Anyway I don't seem to be alone considering them
as CRPGs.
>> Doom or Quake with stats: that would be Ultima Underworld 1-2 or
>> System Shock 2. Many people consider them to be at least partly RPG
>> games.
>>
> From my recollection of UW1 it was RPGish, with a few different
>alternatives in the types of actions you could take, but not a full
>fledged RPG. SS2 I haven't played.
Ah, again, I just replied to someone who angered because he thought I
hinted UUW1-2 are not CRPGs (which I didn't). He even went to say that
UUW is more a RPG than Wizardy series, Golden Box games etc. ever
were. Opinions seem to differ vastly on what is a CRPG depending on
who you ask. :)
The only thing in my opinion that steeres UUW1-2 and SS2 away from
CRPG genre is that they also have some action gaming elements due to
their realtime nature. But still their RPG qualities are so strong
that I personally consider them to be RPGs, or at least action-RPG
hybrids.
>> I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT BUILDING LEVELS. I was talking about developing
>> skills for your character or party and being able to decide how to
>> play the game.
>>
> Your definition of gameplay is too broad, though. I don't think
>building abilities to give you different ways to shoot things is part of
>role playing.
Since I was talking about ADOM above, you don't develop skills only to
"shoot things differently". You develop also your swimming skills,
magic skills, trading skills, gem appraisal skills, stealth etc. etc.
Also depending what kind of character you are, NPCs may either like
you a lot or even fear you and not talk to you (if you are something
like chaotic-evil troll or whatever), and also what kind of character
you are also decides your eating habits, for example a troll can eat
almost anything (even things a human would just vomit back), but a
troll also needs to eat more because he/she is so bulky.
>Its part of a rewards system that good games offer to keep
>you interested, but its not part of what makes RPGs what they are.
So what is it then that makes a CRPG a CRPG? Please, something that
doesn't also make Grim Fandango, Tomb Raider, Monkey Island 1-3 etc.
also roleplaying games.
>> Fallout is a good example of this too, you can choose
>> how to handle the big baddie depending on the skills you have
>> developed for you character (you can even choose to talk him out of
>> his plans if you have developed good conversation skills or charm).
>>
> I agree here. Fallout is an RPG.
But why? Something that is not common with e.g. ADOM.
>But just because it has
>elements that are similar ot other games does not mean those games are
>also RPGs. See my comment about cats and legs in another post.
Talking about cats, you just seem to circulate my question of what is
it then that makes a CRPG a CRPG, like a cat around a hot meal.
>> It is nowhere as ridiculous as saying that a story makes a RPG. So
>> what is YOUR definition for a RPG? For example what makes Baldur's
>> Gate, Fallout, Planescape, Ultima 1 and Wizardy Gold RPGs, but not
>> Black Dahlia, Grim Fandango, Realms of Haunting, Sanitarium etc.?
>>
> I didn't say a story "makes" an RPG. However, if there is no
>story, what choices can you possibly make?
My life doesn't have a "big story" that I would make a movie of, yet I
make decisions (usually on limited choices) every day. How about when
playing some online RPG like Ultima Online? Does it have much of a
story? Is it a CRPG?
How about Daggerfall or Darklands? I don't remember them having real
stories either, yet they are usually considered to be CRPGs.
>Where is the role playing? It
In actually playing the character or characters as what they are,
depending on their skills to handle different situations, improving
the skills you see as important to you etc. Darklands for example?
>doesn't even have to be a story in the sense that its the point of the
>game. Take Fallout and remove the water shortage and the Master and it
>would still be an RPG, because there are smaller stories there where you
>get a chance to role play.
What I meant by a "story" was something that you could write a book
of. I didn't mean a collection of sub quests.
>> Don't put words in my mouth. If the game would still be just about
>> shooting things, then it would still be a shooter, albeit maybe with
>> some RPG qualities.
>>
> So Diablo is a shooter.
I tend to agree. It is Gauntlet with some light RPG qualities. Namely
those skills/stats and developing them.
>Stats are not RPG qualities.
Choosing and developing a character(s) with its skills and using those
skills to overcome situations depending on those skills is the only
thing that differs CRPGs like Fallout and ADOM from adventure or
adventure-action games like Grim Fandango, Tomb Raider etc.
> The tank example is showing that Diablo is not an RPG. Don't even
>try to say that Diablo is an RPG only because you play a person and not a
>tank.
No I am not saying that. At best Diablo is RPG-lite in my opinion. The
only thing that makes it even a bit a CRPG is that you can develop at
least some skills (strength, magic etc.) and try to overcome obstacles
with the skills you are good that, but the system in Diablo is very
simplified (your skills are mainly related just to fighting), and
doesn't go any deeper like the skill systems in Fallout, System Shock
2, Ultima Underworld 1-2, ADOM, NetHack etc.
>> So lets hear it: what is your definition for a RPG?
>>
> An RPG is a game where you control a character and make decisions
>for him in an arbitrary game world. The decisions need to be meaningful
>(for instance, if an NPC asks you a yes or no question, your responce
>should change the situation to some degree). The actions your character
>takes should be more complex than just shooting (or hitting or otherwise
>killing) things. This is because just killing things doesn't allow you to
>generate a personality for your character, at least in the game. Killing
>in RPGs is fine, as long as it is not the only element of the game. For
>instance, if Fallout had a long section in the middle where you just
>killed things for a few hours, but otherwise was the same, it would still
>be an RPG.
Thank you. So your definition makes almost all adventure games now
roleplaying games. Space Quest for example:
- You make decisions for your character (there are even multiple
choices for example how to handle the robot spider in the desert,
either just outrun it, or drop a big rock on it from a ledge above, or
lure it into the same cave with the monsters which kills both the
spider and the monster; or similarly, how to get a part of that
monster as a proof for that alien).
- Apparently you are playing in an arbitrary game world (duh)
- You are not just killing things, but it is usually ok if you do.
Space Quest doesn't have much of dialogue with NPCs though, but
replace Space Quest with any LucasArts adventure, and there you are:
multiple choice discussions that change the situation.
By the way, your definition also makes ADOM a RPG. It doesn't miss any
of your requirements.
Brian Robinson
> : though they are much closer to action games. Make Angband real time and
> : it would just be an overhead perspective shooter. Its really not an RPG.
> That's gotta be the silliest description of roguelike games ever.
>
Its a description of a real time roguelike. Roguelike games have
their own genre which is seperate from RPGs. All RLs I'm familiar with
have been turn based, except for Diablo, and I would classify Diablo as an
action game, because the gameplay is identical to many other action games
I have played.
> The only thing Angband or any other roguelike has with action games is the
> perspective.. and amount of combat. And if combat makes a game an action
> game, guess that makes 95% of all games ever published action games.
> What else can you do in Panzer Command, Jane's F-15 or Eye of Beholder?
>
I didn't say Roguelikes were action games. From my POV, flight
sims (with combat) and FP tank games are action games. EOB wasn't much of
a role playing game, either.
Brian Robinson
>> NetHack is *not* a CRPG or a roleplaying game or anything like that.
> BZZT! Go lurk in some of the roguelike newsgroups.
>
I happen to know that Peter Knutsen is a regular poster in the
rgr.development group, and its likely he reads others as well.
> Many people post
> narrative descriptions of their games, or parts of their games. Roguelikes
> put you into your "role" better than almost any other game type out
> there! If you've played the game any at all, you feel for the person's
> dialogue. And the game they played, while it had similar elements to
> each of your games, was different.
>
Yeah, the narratives take the form, "I was at 100 feet and I found
this long sword 4d5, so I IDed it an it was Ringil! Unfortunately, I got
killed by an out of depth monster a few levels later." The narratives are
almost always about the cool items they picked up, and that's not role
playing...
Brian Robinson
> All those who claim that my view that "choosing and developing a
> character" is the essence of CRPGs is ridiculous, none of them have
> not been able to come with even as good definition of CRPG,
>
it can't be a feature of RPG, but that it isn't what RPGs are about. Its
like a fantasy setting; as far as CRPGs go, fantasy settings greatly
outnumber other settings but a fantasy setting is not required to have a
CRPG, nor does a game having a fantasy setting make it any more of an RPG
than it would be otherwise. Building levels, skills, stats, or any such
numerical attributes doesn't make a game any more of a CRPG. It is a
feature common to many RPGs, though. I would say that if you had Fallout,
and you didn't have any stats, but otherwise the game was the same and you
could still affect the outcomes of events in ways that do not depend on
your stats, then it would still be an RPG. And if that's true, then level
building or character development in a numerical sense is not neccasary
for a game to be an RPG.
> I see. So you don't consider Wizardy and Gold Box games to be (C)RPGs?
> This is getting interesting.
>
Older "CRPGs" are a difficult issue. By todays standards, they
really don't offer much in the way of role playing. However, by the
standards of the time in which they were released, they were the best
CRPGs around. This discussion will come up again in fifty years when we
have computers that have the intelligence to act as DMs, and people will
be having this argument about what features you need to have a CRPG, and
one of the required features in that time would be a computer smart enough
to realistically arbitrate decisions in the context of the game world.
That's not possible today, so we don't expect it of our games. So maybe I
should call my definition that of a modern CRPG.
who...@wherever.com
: I didn't say Roguelikes were action games. From my POV, flight
: sims (with combat) and FP tank games are action games. EOB wasn't much of
: a role playing game, either.
Looks like you're taking the term "RPG" waaay too literally...
A game doesn't need to allow you to play whoever you want and to do whatever
you want in the game world to be an RPG game.
Andreas Philipp
Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
5Jh8OPWKQFzF=nbFZ8kEoG+CL5Q=@131.228.6.99...
> Brian Robinson <brob...@moses.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>
> >Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Hmm. By this logic then if Doom or Quake had stats then they
> >>>would be RPGs?
> >
they are both real-time strategy.... they are real-time and you need a
certain strategy for not being killed at once ;)
Andreas
John R. Chapman
On 12 Jan 2000, Brian Robinson wrote:
> John R. Chapman <jcha...@comp.uark.edu> wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jan 2000, Peter Knutsen wrote:
> >> NetHack is *not* a CRPG or a roleplaying game or anything like that.
>
> > BZZT! Go lurk in some of the roguelike newsgroups.
> >
> I happen to know that Peter Knutsen is a regular poster in the
> rgr.development group, and its likely he reads others as well.
That actually occured to me, assuming it was the same fellow. But the
comment still stands. I've seen many narrative posts (especially in
r.g.r.angband) which were well written, describing the 'game' from
the point of view of the person's character. I'm NOT trying to say
that many of the posts aren't as you describe, just that a signifigant
number are as I describe.
-john
>
> > Many people post
> > narrative descriptions of their games, or parts of their games. Roguelikes
> > put you into your "role" better than almost any other game type out
> > there! If you've played the game any at all, you feel for the person's
> > dialogue. And the game they played, while it had similar elements to
> > each of your games, was different.
> >
> Yeah, the narratives take the form, "I was at 100 feet and I found
> this long sword 4d5, so I IDed it an it was Ringil! Unfortunately, I got
> killed by an out of depth monster a few levels later." The narratives are
> almost always about the cool items they picked up, and that's not role
> playing...
>
Markus Mokkanen
> My point is that "development" is not essential to RPGs. Not that
>it can't be a feature of RPG, but that it isn't what RPGs are about. Its
It is, because all games that are widely regarded as CRPGs have it.
Games that don't use any such system but are otherwise pretty similar
are usually called adventure games.
>like a fantasy setting; as far as CRPGs go, fantasy settings greatly
>outnumber other settings but a fantasy setting is not required to have a
>CRPG, nor does a game having a fantasy setting make it any more of an RPG
>than it would be otherwise.
True, but the difference is that all CRPGs have "skill raising" as
part of their gameplay, while there are lots of non-medieval CRPGs
(Albion, System Shock 2, Al-Qadim, Veil of Darkness, Fallout 1-2,
Wasteland, Fountain of Dreams etc.).
Skill raising is the biggest thing differentiating CRPGs from
adventure games.
>Building levels, skills, stats, or any such
>numerical attributes doesn't make a game any more of a CRPG.
It is, because without it most CRPGs would be widely considered to be
adventure games.
>It is a
>feature common to many RPGs, though. I would say that if you had Fallout,
>and you didn't have any stats, but otherwise the game was the same and you
>could still affect the outcomes of events in ways that do not depend on
>your stats, then it would still be an RPG. And if that's true, then level
No it wouldn't. If it didn't have any stats, how would the game decide
e.g. how a discussion would proceed? Would it always proceed as if you
were a wise man, or a dumb brute? That was the biggest roleplaying
element in Fallout, handling different situations depending on the
skills you had, either talking or charming your way out of simply
fighting.
If Fallout didn't have any skills and stats, then lots of its gameplay
would be removed also (like the choices depending on your character's
abilities like I said above), and it would be mostly considered to be
an adventure game.
>> I see. So you don't consider Wizardy and Gold Box games to be (C)RPGs?
>> This is getting interesting.
>>
> Older "CRPGs" are a difficult issue. By todays standards, they
>really don't offer much in the way of role playing. However, by the
It isn't a difficult issue at all. Zork and Colossal Cave are still
adventure games even if they have the story, graphics and sounds of
today's adventure games.
Markus Mokkanen
>who...@wherever.com wrote:
>> Brian Robinson <brob...@moses.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>> : Well, you're saying games like Nethack and Angband are RPGs even
>> : though they are much closer to action games. Make Angband real time and
>> : it would just be an overhead perspective shooter. Its really not an RPG.
>
>> That's gotta be the silliest description of roguelike games ever.
>>
> Its a description of a real time roguelike. Roguelike games have
There is no such thing.
>their own genre which is seperate from RPGs. All RLs I'm familiar with
Or then it is just a subgenre of CRPGs, like quakelike games are a
subgenre of action games.
Knight37
>> I see. So you don't consider Wizardy and Gold Box games to be
>> (C)RPGs? This is getting interesting.
>>
> Older "CRPGs" are a difficult issue. By todays standards, they
>really don't offer much in the way of role playing. However, by the
>standards of the time in which they were released, they were the
>best CRPGs around. This discussion will come up again in fifty
>years when we have computers that have the intelligence to act as
>DMs, and people will be having this argument about what features you
>need to have a CRPG, and one of the required features in that time
>would be a computer smart enough to realistically arbitrate
>decisions in the context of the game world. That's not possible
>today, so we don't expect it of our games. So maybe I should call my
>definition that of a modern CRPG.
By your definition there are only about 3 or 4 games that qualify.
Fallout, FO2, Planescape. Maybe a few of the Ultimas. Not much else.
That's hardly a large enough sampling of games to be a genre. While
the greatest CRPG games of the future may have all that, *NOT ALL
WILL*. Some will still have the same basic gameplay elements that
Wizardry had. Since Wizardry is a CRPG, it seems logical to call
any new games with the same gameplay a CRPG too. Maybe what you want
to do is come up with a whole new genre of games that fit the
"more like role-playing games", but I don't see a need to. They're
all CRPG games, hey just have varying levels of RPG-like qualities.
--
Knight37
"From where you're standing you can't even imagine what the bottom
looks like. It's only after you've lost everything that you're truely
free to do anything." -- Tyler Durden
Peter Seebach
Brian Robinson <brob...@moses.ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> Its a description of a real time roguelike. Roguelike games have
>action game, because the gameplay is identical to many other action games
>I have played.
There was a roguelike for the Sega Genesis that was mostly turn-based, except
that I think everything would move if you waited long enough.
So, is Gauntlet an RPG?
How about Gauntlet IV for the Genesis, where XP's allowed you to increase your
statistics, as did special equipment you could buy?
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Brian Robinson
>>>> Actually, you're wrong here again. Roguelike games are their own
>>>>seperate genre. Check out the rec.games.roguelike.* heirarchy for more
>>>>information.
>>
>>> There is also hierarchy for Quake games, so you have proven nothing.
>>>
>> Jesus. I wasn't using the HEIRARCHY as my proof. I said you
> Seemed so.
>
Well, I wasn't. Why is it so hard to believe that an English
phrase has taken on a greater meaning than its dictionary definition?
>>> You are wrong. When you say a game is Quake like, you are comparing it
>>> to Quake. When you say a game is Rogue like, you are comparing it to
>>> (drum roll) Rogue. There's no difference in those comparisons.
>>>
>> Listen. You don't know what you're talking about. I can see its
>>an honest mistake, but you have to understand that the term Roguelike has
>>grown beyond the exact meaning of those words. For those people that play
> Don't patronize me, because you seem to know exactly nothing.
> Rogue-like game means exactly that: a game that resembles the
> grand-daddy of games like NetHack and ADOM, namely Rogue. There is no
> magic in that word, that is all it means.
>
Okay. Have you ever read any of the roguelike newsgroup? I have
been for many years, and a couple of times a year a debate will come up
about what the term roguelike really means. Some think it means that a
game is similar to the original game of Rogue. However, they are in the
minority. Most people think it means a class of games that people play
today that in many case aren't very similar at all to Rogue, but are
called Roguelike simply because no one has come up with a better term for
them. The original Rogue lacked graphics, spells, races, classes, unique
items, unique enemies, wilderness areas, towns, religions, and it had only
a few monster types. Most games today that are considered to be Roguelike
have some or all of these features, and they tend to differn from Rogue in
many other areas as well. However, we still call them Roguelikes because
the word has come to mean more than just "something that is like Rogue."
>>In 6, you initially think the gargoyles are your enemies,
>>and then you gradually learn they are just misunderstood.
> Happens also in many adventure games, and in Half-life (action game)
> you first think the marines are out to save you and other employees,
> but they were just misunderstood by you lot. :)
>
I didn't say it was a unique manifestation of this story element.
I just meant that there was a story which made your action relevant to the
gameworld.
Brian Robinson
>> Well, you're saying games like Nethack and Angband are RPGs even
>>though they are much closer to action games.
> Say what? They are not action games at all. What gives you that
> assumption?
>
I didn't say they are action games. I said they are close to
action games. The Roguelike genre has more similarities to action games
(focus on killing, hordes of monsters, little to no NPC interation) than
they do to RPGs. However, as I've said many times in this thread,
Roguelike games are their own genre.
> Free clue: all action games ARE realtime games. Show me one action
> game which isn't. They need to be realtime games because action games
> by definition have action and demand at least some kind of reflexes.
> Angbang, Nethack or ADOM don't require reflexes at all, because they
> are turn-based. Thus they is no way they could be considered to be
> even partially action games.
>
See my discussion above where I explain why the words you put in
my mouth are incorrect.
> And even if they were realtime, hardly any action games have such a
> wealth of gameplay options, development of character and use of items
> etc., because they would interfere with the _action_ (the important
> word here).
>
No, that's not true. Many action games involve equipment and
special option. Look at Tyrian or Raptor for games that are obviously
action game but which have complex stores and ship upgrades, etc.
> Ah, again, I just replied to someone who angered because he thought I
> hinted UUW1-2 are not CRPGs (which I didn't). He even went to say that
> UUW is more a RPG than Wizardy series, Golden Box games etc. ever
> were. Opinions seem to differ vastly on what is a CRPG depending on
> who you ask. :)
>
I would agree that UW was more of a modern CRPG than
Wizardy/GoldBox/Old Ultimas. But only because technology allowed it to be
so.
> The only thing in my opinion that steeres UUW1-2 and SS2 away from
> CRPG genre is that they also have some action gaming elements due to
> their realtime nature. But still their RPG qualities are so strong
> that I personally consider them to be RPGs, or at least action-RPG
> hybrids.
>>> I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT BUILDING LEVELS. I was talking about developing
>>> skills for your character or party and being able to decide how to
>>> play the game.
>>>
>> Your definition of gameplay is too broad, though. I don't think
>>building abilities to give you different ways to shoot things is part of
>>role playing.
> Since I was talking about ADOM above, you don't develop skills only to
> "shoot things differently". You develop also your swimming skills,
> magic skills, trading skills, gem appraisal skills, stealth etc. etc.
>
Other than swimming and appraising (which aren't too role playing
anyway), those other skills mainly allow you to kill things.
> Also depending what kind of character you are, NPCs may either like
> you a lot or even fear you and not talk to you (if you are something
> like chaotic-evil troll or whatever), and also what kind of character
> you are also decides your eating habits, for example a troll can eat
> almost anything (even things a human would just vomit back), but a
> troll also needs to eat more because he/she is so bulky.
>
That's not roleplaying. In an action game, a plane might be able
to fly over water and a tank might have to go around, but you wouldn't be
"role-playing" your tank because the game forced you to go around.
>>Its part of a rewards system that good games offer to keep
>>you interested, but its not part of what makes RPGs what they are.
> So what is it then that makes a CRPG a CRPG? Please, something that
> doesn't also make Grim Fandango, Tomb Raider, Monkey Island 1-3 etc.
> also roleplaying games.
>
Okay, have you not been reading the parts of my posts that you
can't criticise? I've said this over and over; role playing is taking a
character and having them interact with a game world where they can take
actions which will affect the gameworld in meaningful ways (killing lots
of baddies in Angband or Diablo doesn't really count, because there is no
rest of the gameorld for the effect to be meaningful to).
>>> Fallout is a good example of this too, you can choose
>>> how to handle the big baddie depending on the skills you have
>>> developed for you character (you can even choose to talk him out of
>>> his plans if you have developed good conversation skills or charm).
>>>
>> I agree here. Fallout is an RPG.
> But why? Something that is not common with e.g. ADOM.
>
You can become involved in the lives of NPCs and your actions can
affect how they feel or live. You can blow up the reactor or fix it. You
can defend your team mate or sell him off to slavery. Fallout does
involve combat, but its not the core of the game, and if you removed the
combat, there would still be a lot of game left, and plenty of role
playing. If you remove the combat from ADOM, what would be left,
swimming?
> My life doesn't have a "big story" that I would make a movie of, yet I
> make decisions (usually on limited choices) every day. How about when
> playing some online RPG like Ultima Online? Does it have much of a
> story? Is it a CRPG?
>
Well, I haven't played UO, but I remember that before it came out
one of the claims Origin made was that it would have an ecosystem, and
that if the orcs reproduced too much, they would start raiding the cities,
and then the players could go out and kill the orcs to save the
townspeople. This is a little story that makes the fighting meaningful.
Even if the players didn't have any statistics or skills to raise, this
combat would still be meaningful. OTOH, if a bunch of players said, "We
need to raise our stats," and then went out and killed some orcs, that
wouldn't be role playing, because it would only be done for meta-game
reasons.
I never said having a "big story" was important. Just that in an
RPG your motivations for doing the things you do should be more complex
than "I need to build up my stats so I can fight tougher monsters." You
say there's no story to your life, but if I was playing a character in an
RPG set in the modern world, the tasks I would do would be interacting
with my friends, completing my project at work, etc. It might be less fun
for me than playing a hero with a sword, but I would have a context for my
actions. That's what I meant by story.
> How about Daggerfall or Darklands? I don't remember them having real
> stories either, yet they are usually considered to be CRPGs.
>
Heven't played either of these, so I don't know.
>>doesn't even have to be a story in the sense that its the point of the
>>game. Take Fallout and remove the water shortage and the Master and it
>>would still be an RPG, because there are smaller stories there where you
>>get a chance to role play.
> What I meant by a "story" was something that you could write a book
> of. I didn't mean a collection of sub quests.
>
Well, that's why you're confused. I did mean sub quests, to a
certain extent. As I said above, there needs to be a grander reason for
my playing an RPG than an action game. When I sit down to play Tyrian or
Diablo or Angband, I just want to make my guy better and kill lots of
things. Its generally mindless but entertaining fun. If I play Fallout
or another RPG, however, I want to interact with characters, learn about a
world and interact with it in such a way that I feel like my actions have
meaning within that context.
>>> Don't put words in my mouth. If the game would still be just about
>>> shooting things, then it would still be a shooter, albeit maybe with
>>> some RPG qualities.
>>>
>> So Diablo is a shooter.
> I tend to agree. It is Gauntlet with some light RPG qualities. Namely
> those skills/stats and developing them.
>
Right, well Fallout has some light strategic elements (turn based
combat, etc), and yet it is not a strategy game, as we both seem to agree.
>>Stats are not RPG qualities.
> Choosing and developing a character(s) with its skills and using those
> skills to overcome situations depending on those skills is the only
> thing that differs CRPGs like Fallout and ADOM from adventure or
> adventure-action games like Grim Fandango, Tomb Raider etc.
>
No. The difference between these games is that adventure games
have a specific set of things you need to finish the game. You figure out
succesive puzzles until you get to the end. You don't really roleplay,
because you are almost always given a predefined character who has all of
his action hard-coded into the program. In an RPG, you have a character
who you can do with as you wish, and you get to make choices about what
this character would do in the game. In general, and RPG is much less
linear than an adventure, and there are many more choices available to
your character.
>> The tank example is showing that Diablo is not an RPG. Don't even
>>try to say that Diablo is an RPG only because you play a person and not a
>>tank.
> No I am not saying that. At best Diablo is RPG-lite in my opinion.
>
I would say, yes, at best it is RPG-lite. If we take this to mean
that there is very limited character interaction, and no actual role
playing, just a passing similarity to games that are in fact role playing
games. But if that's the case rather than calling it RPG-lite, I would be
more inclined to call it and action game.
>>> So lets hear it: what is your definition for a RPG?
>>>
>> An RPG is a game where you control a character and make decisions
>>for him in an arbitrary game world. The decisions need to be meaningful
>>(for instance, if an NPC asks you a yes or no question, your responce
>>should change the situation to some degree). The actions your character
>>takes should be more complex than just shooting (or hitting or otherwise
>>killing) things. This is because just killing things doesn't allow you to
>>generate a personality for your character, at least in the game. Killing
>>in RPGs is fine, as long as it is not the only element of the game. For
>>instance, if Fallout had a long section in the middle where you just
>>killed things for a few hours, but otherwise was the same, it would still
>>be an RPG.
> Thank you. So your definition makes almost all adventure games now
> roleplaying games. Space Quest for example:
> Space Quest doesn't have much of dialogue with NPCs though, but
> replace Space Quest with any LucasArts adventure, and there you are:
> multiple choice discussions that change the situation.
>
But the choices you make in Space Quest are not meaningful in the
context of the game world. How you kill the giant spider doesn't alter
the general tone of the game (I would assume, although I haven't played
the original Space Quest). Once you're past it, its done and the rest of
the game doesn't change in any way dependant on what you did in that
encounter. OTOH, in a game like Fallout, you have a reputation so that if
you do "bad" things in one area, people will react differently to you in
others, and if you kill children, hunters will come after you. There are
a number of ways that your actions can have a wider affect on the world
than just a different way of completing things.
> By the way, your definition also makes ADOM a RPG. It doesn't miss any
> of your requirements.
>
I haven't played ADOM a whole lot, so I don't know how deep it is.
But if its like most other Roguelike games, your actions in one area do
not change anything outside of that area. The choice you make don't have
an effect on the gameworld. They have an effect on you; if you
concentrate on learning swimming you may be able to get to places you
might not otherwise, but that doesn't make your actions any more relevant
in terms of the gameworld.
Brian Robinson
> : sims (with combat) and FP tank games are action games. EOB wasn't much of
> : a role playing game, either.
> Looks like you're taking the term "RPG" waaay too literally...
> A game doesn't need to allow you to play whoever you want and to do whatever
> you want in the game world to be an RPG game.
>
Well, its hard to put anything into a boolean category like that.
I guess there is some degree of a scale involved, and I would say the way
a game would go higher on the RPG scale would be by having more and more
opportunities to play a character of your choosing rather than just solve
puzzles or shoot things. Say that the scale is 1-10 with 1 being not an
RPG, and 10 being the ultimate RPG (played in the real world where "your
imagination is your only limit").
1 - Action, puzzle, strategy, adventure games; actions have little to no
effect on teh gameworld
2-4 - Older CRPGs (Gold Box, old Ultimas, Wizardry) Actions have only
slight effect on gameworld
5-6 - Games like U6, UW, etc where you have a large world with a rich
story and many choices to make
7-8 - Fallout/Fallout II Many Many choices to make, large variety of
characters, much effect on gameworld
9-10 - Gaming in real life, or in a VR system with an intelligent Ai.
Brian Robinson
>>It is a
>>feature common to many RPGs, though. I would say that if you had Fallout,
>>and you didn't have any stats, but otherwise the game was the same and you
>>could still affect the outcomes of events in ways that do not depend on
>>your stats, then it would still be an RPG. And if that's true, then level
> If Fallout didn't have any skills and stats, then lots of its gameplay
> would be removed also (like the choices depending on your character's
> abilities like I said above), and it would be mostly considered to be
> an adventure game.
>
I didn't say it would make it a better game. I'm just saying that
the stats are not the part that makes in an RPG. They happen to make it a
better RPG, but they don't intrinsicly make it an RPG.
>>> I see. So you don't consider Wizardy and Gold Box games to be (C)RPGs?
>>> This is getting interesting.
>>>
>> Older "CRPGs" are a difficult issue. By todays standards, they
>>really don't offer much in the way of role playing. However, by the
> It isn't a difficult issue at all. Zork and Colossal Cave are still
> adventure games even if they have the story, graphics and sounds of
> today's adventure games.
>
Yeah, but the gameplay hasn't changed nearly as much in the
adventure game genre as it has in the RPG genre. Consider, what is the
Zork gameplay like? Find items, move from room to room, figure out how to
use the items to solve the puzzles in the game. What is the gameplay in
Grim Fandango like? Find items, move from room to room, figure out how to
use the items to solve the puzzles in the game.
Now, on the other hand, what is the game play in Ultima 1 like?
Move around and kill things until you are tough enough to kill the big bad
guy. What is the gameplay in Fallout like? Talk with various people and
try to solve their problems in a way that fits the character you are
trying to play. There's been a big shift in the genre hear that didn't
happen in the adventure genre. Its like cars, seventy years ago, a fast
car meant one that went 30 mph, now in means one that goes over 100 mph.
The words are the same but the meaning is different because technology has
changed.
Knight37
>Rogue-like game means exactly that: a game that resembles the
>grand-daddy of games like NetHack and ADOM, namely Rogue. There is
>no magic in that word, that is all it means.
I would agree with this statement.
>It has the same meaning as Quake-like games, also known as first
>person shooters. FPS games are a subgenre of action games, just like
>"roguelike games" are a subgenre of CRPG.
I'm not sure I'd agree 100% that "roguelike" is a subgenre of CRPG.
But I suppose it's close enough that I wouldn't waste a lot of
time arguing about it. It's certainly quantifiable without getting
confused with CRPG's. So it's a very well-defined sub-genre, at
least. Certainly it has almost as much RPG element as Wizardry does.
>> If there is no story, there's no way for you to manifest the
>>character you are attempting to role play within the game. In
>>Ultima 1-3, there was no story, and they really aren't RPGs by
>>today's standards.
>
>What? Definition of certain genres don't change just like that. If
>Ultima 3 was considered to be a CRPG in the eighties, it is
>considered that to be even today.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The old school CRPG games are
still CRPG games. I'll also argue that any NEW game that is written
today that has the same basic gameplay as the old school CRPG's is
still a CRPG.
>Same way like Q-bert is considered to be an action game even today,
Not by me. I consider Q-bert to be an arcade game. I might classify
"arcade" as a subgenre of action. Or not. I consider action games to
basically be "games where you run around shooting things, usually in a
3D world." I consider games like Wolf3D to be the roots of the action
genre. I think games like the original Wolfenstein could be considered
a precursor to the action genre. But games like Qbert, Stargate,
PacMan, Asteroids, Joust, Spyhunter, etc. I consider to be "arcade"
games, from their roots there, and also because these games essentially
have a common element of moving 2D sprites around a playing field. Some
of them involve a lot of shooting in them. I consider those "arcade
shooters" like R-Type, Darrius, Stargate, Spyhunter, 1942, Tyrian, etc.
And I call games like Super Mario Brothers as "arcade platform games"
meaning the gameplay involves jumping around on a lot of platforms and
stuff. Anway, this is way off topic, but I wanted to point out that
Action isn't quite as cut and dry as "all games not RPG, Strategy, or
Adventure." :)
>and Zork 1 or Colossal Cave are still considered to be adventure
>games, even if they don't have stories comparable to Gabriel Knight
>2 or Grim Fandango stories.
Yep, I agree with this completely. I also consider all of these to be
part of the Interactive Fiction genre, a broader genre than just
"adventure games."
Knight37
>Okay. Have you ever read any of the roguelike newsgroup? I have
>been for many years, and a couple of times a year a debate will come
>up about what the term roguelike really means. Some think it means
>that a game is similar to the original game of Rogue. However, they
>are in the minority. Most people think it means a class of games
>that people play today that in many case aren't very similar at all
>to Rogue, but are called Roguelike simply because no one has come up
>with a better term for them. The original Rogue lacked graphics,
>spells, races, classes, unique items, unique enemies, wilderness
>areas, towns, religions, and it had only a few monster types. Most
>games today that are considered to be Roguelike have some or all of
>these features, and they tend to differn from Rogue in many other
>areas as well. However, we still call them Roguelikes because the
>word has come to mean more than just "something that is like Rogue."
The problem is you're trying to define "like rogue" to have something
to do with specific features of rogue, when what it all boils down to
is that roguelike games have the same basic gameplay as rogue did.
They just have a lot more options and features. The fact that they
follow the same gameplay formula that rogue did is what makes them a
roguelike. I consider Diablo a real-time roguelike. Other than the fact
that it's real-time, the basic gameplay is very similar to rogue.
Brian Robinson
> The problem is you're trying to define "like rogue" to have something
> to do with specific features of rogue, when what it all boils down to
> is that roguelike games have the same basic gameplay as rogue did.
>
trading based Roguelike, with no dungeons whatsoever. It will still be a
Roguelike in terms of genre, but it will have very little in common with
Rogue.
> roguelike. I consider Diablo a real-time roguelike. Other than the fact
> that it's real-time, the basic gameplay is very similar to rogue.
>
I think Diablo is a Roguelike too. However, I don't think its too
similar to Rogue.
Markus Mokkanen
>> If Fallout didn't have any skills and stats, then lots of its gameplay
>> would be removed also (like the choices depending on your character's
>> abilities like I said above), and it would be mostly considered to be
>> an adventure game.
>>
> I didn't say it would make it a better game. I'm just saying that
>the stats are not the part that makes in an RPG.
But they do, because without them they would have had to remove lots
of other gameplay elements from it, plus it would me more like an
adventure game after that.
>They happen to make it a
>better RPG, but they don't intrinsicly make it an RPG.
It just usually happens to be so that if you remove "stats" from a
CRPG, and everything that is related to those stats, they usually
become adventure games after that.
>> It isn't a difficult issue at all. Zork and Colossal Cave are still
>> adventure games even if they have the story, graphics and sounds of
>> today's adventure games.
>>
> Yeah, but the gameplay hasn't changed nearly as much in the
>adventure game genre as it has in the RPG genre. Consider, what is the
>Zork gameplay like? Find items, move from room to room, figure out how to
>use the items to solve the puzzles in the game. What is the gameplay in
>Grim Fandango like? Find items, move from room to room, figure out how to
>use the items to solve the puzzles in the game.
There are far more differences that that. For example NPC interaction
in Grim Fandango (multiple choice discussions), an actual story etc.
that were not present in early adventure games.
> Now, on the other hand, what is the game play in Ultima 1 like?
>Move around and kill things until you are tough enough to kill the big bad
>guy.
Funny, I don't remember it being just fighting anything until you were
tough enough to face the end boss. There was more than that.
>What is the gameplay in Fallout like? Talk with various people and
>try to solve their problems in a way that fits the character you are
>trying to play.
And the way that you can play your character depends on those stats.
That's why those stats are important in defining a CRPG.
Otherwise Fallout would have only one kind of character which you use
to discuss with different people and try to solve their problems, just
like in e.g. Grim Fandango or other modern adventure games.
>There's been a big shift in the genre hear that didn't
>happen in the adventure genre.
Yes the same things happened in adventure games: adding a meaninful
story, NPC interaction etc. If you played Colossal Cave or something
similar, there was no story other than that you were hunting for some
pirate treasure hidden somewhere solving puzzles, and you didn't
interact with any NPCs. You do those in modern adventure games.
I still want to know how you define a CRPG. Is it the story? Adventure
games (or even many strategy games) have them too. Is it the
interaction with NPCs? Adventure games have that too. Is it impact you
can make in the game world? Adventure games (and many strategy games)
have that too. Is it the believable world that you live in where NPCs
lead their own life? Adventure games have that too, for example Knight
Orc (I may recall the name wrong), which was a text adventure where
townsfolk (NPCs) seemed to have a life of their own, moving
independently to different places and doing different things etc.
There has to be something special that makes a CRPG a CRPG and not an
adventure, and the only one I can think of is the "stats".
Come to think of it, why was it that many people said that they
consider Jagged Alliance 2 to be at least partially a RPG? As I
remember, it was related to how you have a team of characters you have
chosen, you depend on their skills in their missions, and develop
those skills throughout the game. So many seem to think it was the
"character stats" that made JA2 RPG-like.
As for the "cat/leg" analogy regarding the story in CRPGs, the correct
analogy would be: I am asking what is it that makes cat different from
other species, and you would just say that it is an animal with four
legs. But a dog has four legs too, so that was not the correct answer.
>Its like cars, seventy years ago, a fast
>car meant one that went 30 mph, now in means one that goes over 100 mph.
>The words are the same but the meaning is different because technology has
>changed.
But Ford T-model is still, even today, considered to be a car. Not a
good car, but car nonetheless. Just like Ultima is still a CRPG,
although not very good one anymore because of its simplicity. Also
Colossal Cave is not a good adventure game by current standards
because of its simplicity, but still an adventure game.
Markus Mokkanen
> Well, its hard to put anything into a boolean category like that.
>I guess there is some degree of a scale involved, and I would say the way
>a game would go higher on the RPG scale would be by having more and more
>opportunities to play a character of your choosing rather than just solve
>puzzles or shoot things.
If you didn't have any stats in Fallout, then you couldn't play a
character of _your choosing_. Just like you can't in an adventure game
like Grim Fandango, where you are playing Manny Calavera, period.
Same with System Shock vs. System Shock 2 (I consider SS to be an
action-adventure and SS2 an action-RPG). What is the difference? In SS
you can't choose your character and abilities and not develop those
abilities throughout the game, but in SS2 you can.
Markus Mokkanen
>Markus Mokkanen <mma...@hopmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, you're saying games like Nethack and Angband are RPGs even
>>>though they are much closer to action games.
>
>> Say what? They are not action games at all. What gives you that
>> assumption?
>>
> I didn't say they are action games. I said they are close to
>action games.
Which they aren't, because they lack the definite element that makes
an action game an action game: realtime gameplay. Without it there is
no action, thus not an action game. Not even close.
>The Roguelike genre has more similarities to action games
>(focus on killing, hordes of monsters, little to no NPC interation) than
>they do to RPGs.
First of all, action games do not have to have either killing at all,
or monsters at all. In a way, pinball game is an action game, because
it has realtime gameplay and you need reflexes to play the game. Or
Pong, the first video game ever, clearly an action game, yet no
monsters or killing.
Secondly, having NPC interaction is neither a requirement for a CRPG.
Say you made so dumb character in Fallout that it couldn't utter a
word, but had to have other means to advance in the world.
Or how about if you made a RPG similar to System Shock where you are
ALONE in a space station, and the only "character interaction" you get
is some logs and radio messages from dead members of the crew (or
maybe yourself), and occasional threats from Shodan (the computer).
NPC interaction can make the RPG more interesting, just like it can
make adventure games (Grim Fandango) or even action games (Half-life)
or strategy games (Starcraft, in a sense). But it really isn't a
requirement for a CRPG, and it isn't what makes CRPGs special from
other genres, esp. adventure games.
>they do to RPGs. However, as I've said many times in this thread,
>Roguelike games are their own genre.
They are more like a subgenre or spin-off of CRPGs.
>> Angbang, Nethack or ADOM don't require reflexes at all, because they
>> are turn-based. Thus they is no way they could be considered to be
>> even partially action games.
>>
> See my discussion above where I explain why the words you put in
>my mouth are incorrect.
You claim they are close to action games, but they aren't, because a)
they lack the crucial action gameplay element, realtime gameplay, and
b) action games do not have to have any monsters or killing at all.
So saying they are "close to action games" is clearly wrong.
>> And even if they were realtime, hardly any action games have such a
>> wealth of gameplay options, development of character and use of items
>> etc., because they would interfere with the _action_ (the important
>> word here).
>>
> No, that's not true. Many action games involve equipment and
>special option. Look at Tyrian or Raptor for games that are obviously
>action game but which have complex stores and ship upgrades, etc.
But not during the gameplay. You don't have dozens of buttons to
master when you are playing the game. In ADOM you keep selecting
peacefully the spell you are going to use, or wand to use etc.
Anyway, NetHack or ADOM are not realtime games, so they can't be
considered to be even close to action games. It really is rather
on/off with action games: if it doesn't have realtime gameplay, it
can't be an action game. For a turn-based game there is no such thing
as being "close" to action games.
>> Since I was talking about ADOM above, you don't develop skills only to
>> "shoot things differently". You develop also your swimming skills,
>> magic skills, trading skills, gem appraisal skills, stealth etc. etc.
>>
> Other than swimming and appraising (which aren't too role playing
>anyway), those other skills mainly allow you to kill things.
There are many many many more skills in ADOM that are not related to
killing, I just couldn't bother to list them all. Like how charming
you are, your climbing skills, can you cook food (cooked and tinned
food lasts longer without getting putrid) etc.
They are exactly what makes it roleplaying: you choose and develop the
skills of your character which makes it the character it is, and with
those abilities he/she handles the different situations he faces in
the gameworld.
>> Also depending what kind of character you are, NPCs may either like
>> you a lot or even fear you and not talk to you (if you are something
>> like chaotic-evil troll or whatever), and also what kind of character
>> you are also decides your eating habits, for example a troll can eat
>> almost anything (even things a human would just vomit back), but a
>> troll also needs to eat more because he/she is so bulky.
>>
> That's not roleplaying.
Of course they are. You play the role of your character with the
abilities or disadvantages it has.
>In an action game, a plane might be able
>to fly over water and a tank might have to go around, but you wouldn't be
>"role-playing" your tank because the game forced you to go around.
I already explained earlier that I was always specifically talking
about character based RPGs, because a plane or tank are not
characters. We, as humans, can't obviously relate to a tank or plane.
Same like in adventure games we are always playing characters, not
tanks or planes.
>> So what is it then that makes a CRPG a CRPG? Please, something that
>> doesn't also make Grim Fandango, Tomb Raider, Monkey Island 1-3 etc.
>> also roleplaying games.
>>
> Okay, have you not been reading the parts of my posts that you
>can't criticise?
You haven't shown any such parts yet, like below:
>role playing is taking a
>character and having them interact with a game world where they can take
>actions which will affect the gameworld in meaningful ways
Do you mean like in Civilization 2, or like in Knight Orc or Grim
Fandango? None of them are CRPGs.
>(killing lots
>of baddies in Angband or Diablo doesn't really count, because there is no
>rest of the gameorld for the effect to be meaningful to).
But in lots of adventure games there are. Again, you didn't say
ANYTHING that would be special to CRPGs, that doesn't already exist in
other genres.
And since there are lots of games that are considered to be CRPGs by
everyone else except you where you don't affect the gameworld in the
sense that you mean, like Ultima 3, or any console RPG for that
matter, that is clearly not a requirement for a CRPG. It is something
that can make a CRPG better, though.
>>>> Fallout is a good example of this too, you can choose
>>>> how to handle the big baddie depending on the skills you have
>>>> developed for you character (you can even choose to talk him out of
>>>> his plans if you have developed good conversation skills or charm).
>>>>
>>> I agree here. Fallout is an RPG.
>
>> But why? Something that is not common with e.g. ADOM.
>>
> You can become involved in the lives of NPCs and your actions can
>affect how they feel or live.
Just like in adventure games, and you can do that in ADOM too. Just go
save the cat of that little girl, that will surely affect her life.
>You can blow up the reactor or fix it. You
As you can handle the robot spider in Space Quest in many different
ways.
>can defend your team mate or sell him off to slavery. Fallout does
>involve combat, but its not the core of the game, and if you removed the
>combat, there would still be a lot of game left, and plenty of role
>playing. If you remove the combat from ADOM, what would be left,
>swimming?
Clearly you have not played ADOM.
>> playing some online RPG like Ultima Online? Does it have much of a
>> story? Is it a CRPG?
>>
> Well, I haven't played UO, but I remember that before it came out
>one of the claims Origin made was that it would have an ecosystem, and
>that if the orcs reproduced too much, they would start raiding the cities,
>and then the players could go out and kill the orcs to save the
>townspeople. This is a little story that makes the fighting meaningful.
It is no story, especially one relating to your character. It is just
causality, just like in many adventure games or strategy games.
Civilization for example?
Also, by your definition now NetHack etc. also have a story. You can
do things that affect lots of other things, for example your character
(directly or indirectly), or the gameworld.
> I never said having a "big story" was important. Just that in an
Exactly: a story is not needed for a CRPG. It can make a CRPG more
interesting, but that is all.
>RPG your motivations for doing the things you do should be more complex
>than "I need to build up my stats so I can fight tougher monsters." You
How about "I need to build my charming skills and intelligence so that
I can talk better with the NPCs"?
I never said CRPGs must have lots of combat or combat at all, even
though pretty much all of them do. But even without combat, STATS play
the most important role in roleplaying, because they make your
character what it is and gives him options to handle different
situations differently.
>> How about Daggerfall or Darklands? I don't remember them having real
>> stories either, yet they are usually considered to be CRPGs.
>>
> Heven't played either of these, so I don't know.
It is enough to say that they are commonly considered to be CRPGs.
>>>doesn't even have to be a story in the sense that its the point of the
>>>game. Take Fallout and remove the water shortage and the Master and it
>>>would still be an RPG, because there are smaller stories there where you
>>>get a chance to role play.
>
>> What I meant by a "story" was something that you could write a book
>> of. I didn't mean a collection of sub quests.
>>
> Well, that's why you're confused.
Even though it was you who mentioned the subquests in Fallout.
>I did mean sub quests, to a
>certain extent. As I said above, there needs to be a grander reason for
>my playing an RPG than an action game. When I sit down to play Tyrian or
>Diablo or Angband,
What does Angbang have anything to do with action games? You keep
implying that ADOM, Angbang etc. are action games, yet when I point
that out, you claim I am putting words in your mouth? Grow up.
>I just want to make my guy better and kill lots of
>things. Its generally mindless but entertaining fun. If I play Fallout
>or another RPG, however, I want to interact with characters, learn about a
>world and interact with it in such a way that I feel like my actions have
>meaning within that context.
You could just as well be playing many adventure games then. And it is
quite possible to make a RPG without any NPCs, so there goes your
character interaction.
>> I tend to agree. It is Gauntlet with some light RPG qualities. Namely
>> those skills/stats and developing them.
>>
> Right, well Fallout has some light strategic elements (turn based
>combat, etc), and yet it is not a strategy game, as we both seem to agree.
Exactly. What is important is where the emphasis is. In Fallout it
clearly is in STATS (choosing the abilities of your character,
developing them and using them to handle different situations), thus
it is a CRPG. Same with ADOM.
Although Fallout involves some need of strategic thinking in combat,
it is very light and not comparable to real strategy/tactics games
like Close Combat 2 or many SSI games, where the emphasis clearly is
in strategic thinking, not developing your character or characters.
On the other hand, Jagged Alliance 2 is a strategy/tactics game with
some light CRPG elements, namely the way you choose the characters you
will have in your team and how they develop.
>> Choosing and developing a character(s) with its skills and using those
>> skills to overcome situations depending on those skills is the only
>> thing that differs CRPGs like Fallout and ADOM from adventure or
>> adventure-action games like Grim Fandango, Tomb Raider etc.
>>
> No. The difference between these games is that adventure games
>have a specific set of things you need to finish the game.
There are also multiple solutions in many adventure games, so they
don't have to be specific.
Or if you say they are still specific although there are many
alternative solutions, Fallout doesn't offer limitless amount of
solutions to obstacles either. You might have for example three
different alternatives to overcome the plans of the bad boss.
>You figure out
>succesive puzzles until you get to the end.
Not necessarily successive. I already mentioned different solutions,
and also in many adventure games you can overcome obstacles in
different order.
>You don't really roleplay,
>because you are almost always given a predefined character who has all of
>his action hard-coded into the program.
Exactly. It is predefined because it has no stats. You get to choose
your characters strong points and disadvantages in Fallout.
>In an RPG, you have a character
>who you can do with as you wish,
In that case there are no RPGs, because the choices are always
limited.
>and you get to make choices about what
>this character would do in the game.
Like you can do in multiple choice adventure games. There are at least
three different ways to handle the robot spider in the desert of Space
Quest, or two different ways to get rid of the cave monster.
Of course if you use your water hydrant on the cave monster (solution
#2), you risk of dying of thirst in the desert, but if that is the
choice you would make as that character, you can do that. Just make
sure to go directly back to the alien leader after that.
>In general, and RPG is much less
>linear than an adventure, and there are many more choices available to
>your character.
Like swimming in ADOM? Oh, sorry, that was your line.
>> No I am not saying that. At best Diablo is RPG-lite in my opinion.
>>
> I would say, yes, at best it is RPG-lite. If we take this to mean
>that there is very limited character interaction,
Actually it is because your characters stats and abilities are only
related to combat, and because it has too much emphasis on action.
>and no actual role playing
Too vague. "You feel like you are playing the part of the character"
would make far too many other games also roleplaying games.
>just a passing similarity to games that are in fact role playing
>games. But if that's the case rather than calling it RPG-lite, I would be
>more inclined to call it and action game.
Yes, the emphasis is clearly in action, not choosing and developing
your character and playing the game as him/herself.
>> Space Quest doesn't have much of dialogue with NPCs though, but
>> replace Space Quest with any LucasArts adventure, and there you are:
>> multiple choice discussions that change the situation.
>>
> But the choices you make in Space Quest are not meaningful in the
>context of the game world. How you kill the giant spider doesn't alter
>the general tone of the game
They can alter other things, like if you use the water hydrant to kill
the cave monster, you lose your only source of water in the desert,
which means no more excessive wandering around the desert.
>(I would assume, although I haven't played
>the original Space Quest). Once you're past it, its done and the rest of
>the game doesn't change in any way dependant on what you did in that
>encounter. OTOH, in a game like Fallout, you have a reputation so that if
>you do "bad" things in one area, people will react differently to you in
>others, and if you kill children, hunters will come after you. There are
But you said stat are not needed for a CRPG. You need a stat related
to your character that tells e.g. your reputation in Fallout
gameworld. If there were no stats at all, this, among other things,
would be missing from Fallout. Yet you claimed it would still be a RPG
just as much as now, and I disagreed.
And now you are again just proving how ADOM is a CRPG after all. What
you do in the game affects how townsfolk react to you, as well as
overall what you are.
>a number of ways that your actions can have a wider affect on the world
>than just a different way of completing things.
Civilization.
Markus Mokkanen
>>Same way like Q-bert is considered to be an action game even today,
>
>Not by me. I consider Q-bert to be an arcade game. I might classify
Even the home versions? :) Pretty much all arcade games I have played
are action games.
>"arcade" as a subgenre of action. Or not. I consider action games to
>basically be "games where you run around shooting things, usually in a
>3D world."
I consider action games to be games with lots of action :), realtime
gameplay (needs certain amount of reflexes from the player), and
usually also have simpler controls so that they don't obstruct the
action. There are of course exceptions to the last one, like Quake
MegaTeamFortress seems to use at least half of the keyboard.
>stuff. Anway, this is way off topic, but I wanted to point out that
>Action isn't quite as cut and dry as "all games not RPG, Strategy, or
>Adventure." :)
Of course not, there are also simulations and driving games for
example. :) In action games the emphasis is in action and reflexes,
which makes almost all arcade games action games for me.
Joseph W. O'Sullivan
will get roleplaying from a mature group.
Led Mirage
wrote:
>Same with System Shock vs. System Shock 2 (I consider SS to be an
>action-adventure and SS2 an action-RPG). What is the difference? In SS
>you can't choose your character and abilities and not develop those
>abilities throughout the game, but in SS2 you can.
Do you ever play pen and paper RPGs? Have you ever played Traveller?
Try it, then tell me that Traveller isn't a RPG.
Sheitan
> So lets hear it: what is your definition for a RPG?
A role-playing game is one where the player takes on the role of a character
and plays with a personality of a character other than themself. Skill
development has little or nothing to do with role-playing, though it often
appears in role-playing game. However, unfortunately there is a fundamental
difference between an RPG and a CRPG. The only CRPGs which really qualify
IMO as role-playing games are a few of the Ultima series, Planescape
Torment, Baldur's Gate (borderline), maybe Fallout, Ultima online and
several others I've forgotten (as well as some of the older games I can't
remember, like Betrayal at Krondor).
Role-playing is about dealing with people, not increasing statistics.
Diablo was a fun game, but it was not about dealing with people. A
role-playing game has different solutions to situations, whereas Diablo had
one: kill the monsters.
An RPG must have a story and a plot. A good RPG will have well-developed
characters with differing and interesting motivations.
The most members of the CRPG genre (eg Might & Magic, Diablo, etc etc) have
little to do with role-playing.
- Sheitan
Deathbird
>YEAARRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!! I AM CONFUSED!!!!!!
>
>In System Shock 2, I don't want to kill things. I like annelids :) But
>if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
>
>In Diablo, I think those critters are cute; even Diablo itself is
>cute. But if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
>
>In BG, I think those wolves are cute; those bears are cute; even
>Saverok is cute. But if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
>
>In FallOut2, I think the geckos are cute; the aliens are cute; and even
>Frank Horrigan is cute. But if I don't kill them, they'll kill me!
>
>***BIG SIGH***
>
>I know that roleplaying is not meant to kill things... but... I can't
>finish the games if I don't kill them!!! =)
>
I know these are funny, but I think some of them are actually pretty
decent examples of what separates "real" RPGs from other games.
I don't believe in killing animals, so my characters generally don't,
either. To me, a game shows that it is making a better effort at being
an RPG if my characters can succeed at this.
For example, in the Realms of Arkania games, I cast fear spells on
lions, wolves, etc. so that they run away. (This can also show
shortcomings of the roleplaying elements -- like in Blade of Destiny,
where the victory message tells me about all the dead wolves lying
around, even though I haven't killed a single one, or when pathfinding
locks up the game because the designers didn't anticipate a cave full
of wild dogs all trying to find an exit, etc.)
In Ultima, I just run away. (Like most RPGs, unfortunately, there's
still the ridiculous tendency of a lone wolf to make a beeline for 7
or 8 armed warriors for no apparent reason...)
In Baldur's Gate, I can cast an entangle or charm spell, etc. I can
also slow them down by pounding them empty-handed and then running
away. (Again, this also shows the limits of roleplaying -- I accepted
that stupid bear quest near the gnoll stronghold, used all kinds of
means to lure the bear away, only to find the ridiculous buffoon still
whining about the bear that was no longer there. I think I pounded him
into unconsciousness and just left him there... Maybe I pickpocketed
the reward just to be fair.)
These are all things that are possible because of the "world
simulation" elements of an RPG game (or at least a game that aspires
to be one), and are practically nonexistent in games that are not
RPGs, or at least are not "real" RPGs.
Deathbird