What is bad about the gameplay ASIDE from people trying to play this like a shooter?

[Grand_Commander13]

It might work better or not but it wouldn't be a RPG. Let me be simple : Stats = RPG, Obsidian is a company that makes RPGs...

Okay, I'm going to have to repeat myself for you guys:

To be honest the combat is one of the least important parts of what makes a game truly an RPG. People whined about Invisible War not having the skill system but the game was no less an RPG for lacking it. You could make a perfectly good RPG where the core gameplay was solving puzzles, for instance. Think Myst but rather than an adventure game with a set path you choose your own.

 

In fact, take Mass Effect, remove all combat and references to Shepard, and you play as Liara going to various Prothean dig sites working your way through the ruins trying to solve the mystery of the cycle of extinctions. Side quests earn you extra funding and backers for your published research, and conversations with scientific peers affects reception of your whirlwind of sudden finds and eventually whether you can present a convincing enough case to plead before the Council. Why didn't Bioware publish this game?

So character skill in combat is not necessary in an RPG, though player decision making in a character's preparation for combat (or the main gameplay; again, combat is not a must) must play a role.

 

And yes I liked Invisible War. Go to Bethesda Softworks.

[Thorton_AP]

Repeating your definition of what an RPG is to you won't accomplish much.

 

Many consider character driven skill systems to be required for a roleplaying game. Many of them do not even care about "choosing your own path" as being a requirement either.

[Grand_Commander13]

Then that makes Diablo more of an RPG than Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate isn't much of an RPG, but come on.

[Thorton_AP]

Baldur's Gate is purely character skill driven.

 

It follows an established ruleset, but what I meant by "character driven skill systems" was more along the lines of "My character is the one that does the task, not myself."

 

And along with Fallout, you'll find a large number of PC gamers that consider Baldur's Gate to be among the crown jewels of all RPGs.

 

I think people put Baldur's Gate on a pedestal for some reasons that I feel are incorrect, but through and through I consider Baldur's Gate an RPG. I doubt you'd ever find me saying that it "isn't much of an RPG." Especially considering the host of other games that were considered RPGs on the computer.

[Grand_Commander13]

It doesn't have a skill system though, just a mechanism by which your character's class, level, and gear are the sole determinants of (combat) ability. Aside from mages learning spells, there's no effective input on your character after character creation.

 

I'll spare you my rant about how what computer games are called "RPGs" has changed with the development of tabletop games. It shall suffice to say that we have a difference of opinion and leave it there.

[Hassat Hunter]

Have you played Baldur's Gate?

 

It got skills alright. Well, not if you're a fighter. But they got other perks to be useful.

[Zoraptor]

So character skill in combat is not necessary in an RPG, though player decision making in a character's preparation for combat (or the main gameplay; again, combat is not a must) must play a role.

The trouble with these sort of definitions is that, well...

 

How do you exclude, say, Wing Commander IV or Privateer from being RPGs? By your definition I would have to classify just about every Wing Commander game, Privateer, Elite 2/3 as RPGs. And how do you exclude them without excluding titles that are RPGs?

 

Arguably even something like Far Cry 2 (for a more modern example) would qualify too.

 

'Character' skill being more important than, or (strongly) influencing player skill is important because otherwise you end up with just about anything with a strong/ branching storyline and decision making becoming an RPG.

 

NB: The questions I pose are mainly rhetorical ones- 'what makes an RPG' discussions are usually dreadfully banal and involve lots of arguing past each others opinions and I'm happy enough accepting any definition which works reasonably well.

[Grand_Commander13]

Oh yeah, I forgot, thieves also get to pick their skills. If traps were more common it might almost be worthwhile.

 

I haven't played any of the earlier Wing Commanders, but I have played Privateer. To be honest, it's kind of like an early Bethesda game set in space, except with randomly generated quests instead of hand-designed. I mean, it even has factional standing. If you considered Bethesda's games to be good RPGs I don't think you could exclude Privateer from the definition.

 

What's missing from Privateer for me to consider it an RPG is its lack of any real player impact on the world around them, any real reaction to their actions. I mean, for all its weak points Baldur's Gate had it. Torment had it. Oh boy did Fallout have it. And you need to have choices as to which action to take in any given situation, otherwise you're watching a movie and pressing buttons every time a battle comes up (or, if the game isn't a JRPG, usually solving puzzles).

[Thorton_AP]

If you considered Bethesda's games to be good RPGs I don't think you could exclude Privateer from the definition.

 

Unless of course the definition of an RPG is not particularly set in stone anyways.

 

I consider Baldur's Gate a significantly better RPG than a game like Oblivion.

 

 

There is no consensus on the definition of an RPG. There's overlaps on various things, but it's one of the weakest genre definitions out there.

[LookAndRoll]

It might work better or not but it wouldn't be a RPG. Let me be simple : Stats = RPG, Obsidian is a company that makes RPGs...

Okay, I'm going to have to repeat myself for you guys:

To be honest the combat is one of the least important parts of what makes a game truly an RPG. People whined about Invisible War not having the skill system but the game was no less an RPG for lacking it. You could make a perfectly good RPG where the core gameplay was solving puzzles, for instance. Think Myst but rather than an adventure game with a set path you choose your own.

 

In fact, take Mass Effect, remove all combat and references to Shepard, and you play as Liara going to various Prothean dig sites working your way through the ruins trying to solve the mystery of the cycle of extinctions. Side quests earn you extra funding and backers for your published research, and conversations with scientific peers affects reception of your whirlwind of sudden finds and eventually whether you can present a convincing enough case to plead before the Council. Why didn't Bioware publish this game?

So character skill in combat is not necessary in an RPG, though player decision making in a character's preparation for combat (or the main gameplay; again, combat is not a must) must play a role.

 

And yes I liked Invisible War. Go to Bethesda Softworks.

 

I disagree 100%.

 

The character skills do matter in a real RPG. In combat, you can't really role play anything unless the character skills are in the equation.

 

Picking or not picking equipment it isn't really role playing, I mean, is RE5 a RPG because you can choose guns and upgrade them?? Not really, not in a million years.

[Grand_Commander13]

Strawman attack me again, why don't you? I never said inventory selection was a sufficient criterion for being an RPG, just that player choice on the main gameplay element was a necessary criterion.

 

And then I'll go on and say that picking the skill you use to kill bad guys with isn't really roleplaying. I mean, is Diablo 2 an RPG because you can choose a class and upgrade skills? Not really, not in a million years.

[unskilled-]

There are two over-arching types of "RPGS". The ones where you roleplay a character the developers want you to as to progress the story how they want it to, characters and all (pretty much the majority of JRPGS, Final Fantasy being the patriarch of the group). The other where you pick your own character, class and other details and go off to complete the storyline (Western RPGS, such as any d20 game or the elderscrolls series).

 

Picking skills is irrelevant because both types incorporate it in their own unique way. Depending on what battle system is used, whether its turn-based, real-time, group-based or single combat varies what they call skills and how you use them (menu selection, skill tree, hot-button, etc).

 

Ontop of that RPG games are less reliant on reflexes, hand-eye coordination and other such things that FPS require, and focus more on strategy and thinking. They are also, on a whole, generally 2 to 3 times longer then your average FPS as well.

 

When talking about ActionRPGs and StrategyRPGs, they essentially fall into the two over-arching categories. The majority of ARPGs and SRPGs tend to follow what the developers want you to do.

 

What separates an ARPGS from a traditional RPG is that it emphasises more reflexes, hand-eye coordination, etc.. ontop of the usual RPG mechanics. Mass Effect and the Castlevania games (post ps1) are some good examples.

 

SRPGs place more emphasis on strategy, tactics and the use of the game engine. Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics are the best examples.

 

While action and strategy games are becoming more cinematic, it should be noted that while you are Role Playing a specific character to complete a storyline, its lack of traditional "RPG" mechanics, such as experience, levels (or whatever the game calls it) and/or expenditure of skill points/picking skills/talents/traits/perks/etc, means they are not a TRPG, SRPG or ARPG (horray for acronyms!)