Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers

[Lephys]

So let me get this straight. You don't define the genres so rigidly, but an RPG to you is a game that 1) gives you character- build choices, and 2) gives Choices in the course of the story.

Could you kindly provide an example of a game that does neither of these, that you still consider an RPG, and why you consider it so?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Could you kindly provide an example of a game that does neither of these, that you still consider an RPG, and why you consider it so?

 

 

A lot of the old games from the late 70s and 80s. Some you may class as adventure rpgs, other were pure rpgs. But there were rpgs back then, albeit in a very simple form. There was no character progression, no levels to go up, no skill points, very little to no choices but you did 'fight dragons and save the kingdom' so to speak.

 

Feels like booting up my Atari 2600, C64 and 130XE.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

A lot of the old games from the late 70s and 80s. Some you may class as adventure rpgs, other were pure rpgs. But there were rpgs back then, albeit in a very simple form. There was no character progression, no levels to go up, no skill points, very little to no choices but you did 'fight dragons and save the kingdom' so to speak.

 

Feels like booting up my Atari 2600, C64 and 130XE.

Well, by that definition, Call of Duty is an RPG. You play the role of Sgt. Whats-his-face, and you simply 'fight terrorists and save the kingd -- err... nation,' so to speak.

 

*shrug*. I'm just saying.

 

Regardless of what you want to call stuff, I think we all know that the point tajerio is making is in direct regard to the actual aspect of "role playing," which forms the first two words in the acronym RPG.

 

Also, you actually don't have to have levels or skill points or progression to have build options. In some games, you simply get to pick from one or two characters at the beginning, and there's SOME functional difference between them, in regard to the adventure ahead. Thus, you're offered two builds. And/or, the "build" aspect is integrated into choices you make along the way. You can't carry/wield all 7 of those weapons you find, so maybe you just grab either the sword or the magic scepter, etc.. Boom. That just handled both of Tajerio's birds (build variance AND story progression choices) with one stone.

 

I don't think the argument's really about semantics, here. We call fast food "fast" food, yet people wait in line at drive-thrus for 20-25 minutes for their food during the busy lunch hour. So, we can accept why we call it "fast food," and yet we can STILL evaluate when it's actually fast and when it isn't.

 

Those old games are obviously accepted as "role-playing" games, and yet there's still a distinctive differnce between PnP-D&D-style role playing and those old games' "take on the role of this character as you make your way through a linear-yet-exciting adventure."

[Bryy]

 

 

 

I cannot express enough how I love this.

[Gfted1]

What does Concentration do again? Prevent casting interrupts?

[Lephys]

What does Concentration do again? Prevent casting interrupts?

I think it's basically action interrupts. Whether it's swinging a sword, casting a spell, moving, etc. It might be more specific than that, but I don't think it's just casting.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

A lot of the old games from the late 70s and 80s. Some you may class as adventure rpgs, other were pure rpgs. But there were rpgs back then, albeit in a very simple form. There was no character progression, no levels to go up, no skill points, very little to no choices but you did 'fight dragons and save the kingdom' so to speak.

 

Feels like booting up my Atari 2600, C64 and 130XE.

Well, by that definition, Call of Duty is an RPG. You play the role of Sgt. Whats-his-face, and you simply 'fight terrorists and save the kingd -- err... nation,' so to speak. 

 

 

sighs. I'm not giving RPG's a definition. There were straight out, cannot be disputed, rpgs 30+ years ago that you played on a computer.

[Lephys]

 

 

A lot of the old games from the late 70s and 80s. Some you may class as adventure rpgs, other were pure rpgs. But there were rpgs back then, albeit in a very simple form. There was no character progression, no levels to go up, no skill points, very little to no choices but you did 'fight dragons and save the kingdom' so to speak.

 

Feels like booting up my Atari 2600, C64 and 130XE.

Well, by that definition, Call of Duty is an RPG. You play the role of Sgt. Whats-his-face, and you simply 'fight terrorists and save the kingd -- err... nation,' so to speak.

 

 

sighs. I'm not giving RPG's a definition. There were straight out, cannot be disputed, rpgs 30+ years ago that you played on a computer.

 

So, you consider those old games RPGs for no reason at all, because you're not trying to give meaning to the term "RPG" in any way, shape, or fashion? They're just RPGs, just because?

 

You're either attributing the word "RPG" with a meaning (aka "defining" it as being representative of something in the design of those old games), or you're not. You can't both think RPG doesn't really mean anything in particular, but also insist that some particular game design constitutes an RPG. That's a paradox.

 

So, please... explain, if you would be so kind. (Maybe I'm just misunderstanding).

Edited February 8, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

So, you consider those old games RPGs for no reason at all,

 

I consider them to be RPGs the same as I call adventure games as adventure games, arcade games as arcade games and already defined games in different genres because those games have already been defined in those genres. It wasn't me that defined them nor gave them meaning or definition. You can't really argue against a game that's been accepted, established and defined and its meaning not disputed for the last 30+ years because it doesn't conform to your view point. This is really going off topic and into semantics. I'm out of here.

[Lephys]

I consider them to be RPGs the same as I call adventure games as adventure games, arcade games as arcade games and already defined games in different genres because those games have already been defined in those genres. It wasn't me that defined them nor gave them meaning or definition. You can't really argue against a game that's been accepted, established and defined and its meaning not disputed for the last 30+ years because it doesn't conform to your view point. This is really going off topic and into semantics. I'm out of here.

It was off topic and into semantics for a good page-or-so now, but I'm flattered you deem me worthy of being the sole cause of off-topic semantic-ary.

[Stun]

 

So let me get this straight. You don't define the genres so rigidly, but an RPG to you is a game that 1) gives you character- build choices, and 2) gives Choices in the course of the story.

Could you kindly provide an example of a game that does neither of these, that you still consider an RPG, and why you consider it so?

 

There are none. An RPG most definitely must have #1, which is the function of a leveling mechanic. But an RPG Doesn't have to have #2. And many of the classics don't. The Icewind Dales come to mind, as I already mentioned. Many of the gold box games don't. Betrayal at Krondor doesn't. The old NES Dragon Warrior games don't. etc. etc. Edited February 8, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

Well, by that definition, Call of Duty is an RPG.

You'd be shocked by the sheer number of misguided fools who, in fact, would look at Call of Duty and argue that it gets there.

 

And didn't Mike Laidlaw, a Bioware Lead Designer catch heat a couple of years ago for trying to argue that games like Call of Duty and Farmville are "RPGs in essence" or some such drivel?

[Bryy]

And didn't Mike Laidlaw, a Bioware Lead Designer catch heat a couple of years ago for trying to argue that games like Call of Duty and Farmville are "RPGs in essence" or some such drivel?

Well, he's not wrong.

 

Both are all about getting new abilities and EXP.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Bryy

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I always thought Role-Playing Games were about Role-Playing.

 

I don't see how getting teh kewl abilities or teh XPS are required.

[Stun]

I always thought Role-Playing Games were about Role-Playing.

Punchout is also about role playing. Is Punchout an RPG? No. Because to be an RPG it must have more than that.

[Lephys]

That's the thing. Role-playing is not the same thing as character-controlling. In Call of Duty, I'm not playing the role of a soldier. I'm just controlling a soldier.

 

Even with acting, we say "such and such is 'playing the role of' (insert character name here)." Those actors are presented with a goal "you need to say this, and you need to convey anger." Each actor plays that role in different ways, as per their own personal choices/approaches. One might shout the line, while another might say it calmly and quietly, but with a weird tick or word emphasis so as to convey a shattering facade of calm atop an ocean of fury. The casting people pick based on what approach they like the best.

 

I dare say the thing that distinguishes role-playing from character controlling is choice on how you approach your character. I.e., as Tajerio put it simply, choice in character variance, and choice in character decision-making/personality, etc. Sure, in Call of Duty, you decide whether or not to fire your gun, and when. But, everything you do only affects your progress towards a single goal: get past all these hostile guys and/or kill all these hostile guys and/or stop all these hostile guys from killing your allies or some important target. You don't choose which side you're on, or what your motivations are, or even what objective it is you want to complete. You just do what you're supposed to do, and that's it.

 

So, yeah, I'd say choice plays a big part of it. And, leveling mechanics are definitely very prevalent as a means by which to implement character distinction (via progress) and choice results, but I'm not entirely sure that leveling up, specifically, is required for the game to be a role-playing game. It's possible that, in some form, progress is?

 

And, actually... interestingly enough, Call of Duty multiplayer HAS leveling mechanics. And it's not an RPG. Although, I'd say it's a little bit closer than the single-player campaign, since you're at least allowed to decide what kind of soldier your character is, and decide what kind of "mission" (multiplayer mode) you're going to take on.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Punchout is also about role playing.

Wrong. Punch-Out is about using a combination of jabs, body blows, and uppercuts to knock out a series of opponents, not about role-playing a character how the player sees fit.

 

 

Because to be an RPG it must have more than that.

The only thing a Role-Playing Game must have is Role-Playing. Everything else is secondary.

Edited February 8, 2014 by KaineParker

[Bryy]

I always thought Role-Playing Games were about Role-Playing.

 

I don't see how getting teh kewl abilities or teh XPS are required.

Modern CoD and Facebook games have many of the mechanics that RPGs possess.

 

Hell, modern sports games are essentially RPGs.

 

Football Manager?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Modern CoD and Facebook games have many of the mechanics that RPGs possess.

Leveling up doesn't make a game a Role-Playing Game.

 

Hell, modern sports games are essentially RPGs.

Career mode in NBA 2K13 is a Role-Playing Game. Because you Role-Play a character.

[Stun]

 

Punchout is also about role playing.

Wrong. Punch-Out is about using a combination of jabs, body blows, and uppercuts to knock out a series of opponents, not about role-playing a character how the player sees fit.

 

Nope. Punchout is about Playing a role of a Boxer. Specifically, a Boxer named Little Mac. Jabs, Body Blows, uppercuts and hooks are merely your boxer's tools. And more importantly, you may use those tools however you see fit.

 

Edit: and, hey, the game even tracks your Boxer's win-loss record.

 

The only thing a Role-Playing Game must have is Role-Playing. Everything else is secondary.

<sigh> no it must have more than just that. Almost every game sees you playing some sort of role. But that doesn't automatically make those games RPGs. In the Mario games, you play the role of....Mario. But the Mario games aren't RPGs. Flight Simulators see you playing the role of... a pilot. But I've never heard anyone refer to flight sims as "cRPGs" lol. Edited February 8, 2014 by Stun

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Nope. Punchout is about Playing a role of a Boxer. Specifically, a Boxer named Little Mac. Jabs, Body Blows, uppercuts and hooks are merely your boxer's tools. And more importantly, you may use those tools however you see fit.

You are controlling Little Mac, not role-playing him.

 

Controlling =/= Role-Playing. When someone pilots a drone aircraft, they aren't role-playing a plane, they're controlling a plane.

 

<sigh> no it needs more than just that. After all, just about every game sees you playing some sort of role. In the Mario games, you play the role of....Mario.

*sigh*

 

role-play·ing

n.

An instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role.

 

You don't do that in Mario, you hit buttons so the figure on the monitor or screen hits things with a hammer or jumps.

 

A ROLE-PLAYING GAME is only required to have ROLE-PLAYING, hence the name. They aren't called "Stat-managing with leveling up games".

Edited February 8, 2014 by KaineParker

[Stun]

You are controlling Little Mac, not role-playing him.

No, you can role play him. If I want to make my Little Mac be a Roberto Duran Clone, then I'll concentrate on a heavy Body attack and occasional hooks to the head. But if I want to make my Little Mac be a Floyd Mayweather clone, then I'll play him differently. I'll jab and jab, dodge right, dodge left...etc.

 

Additionally, if I want to role play a fighter who comes back from defeat to win the title, then I'll deliberately lose my first couple of fights, then come back and carve out a win streak to the championship (the game keeps track of your record).

 

Punchout still isn't an RPG, though, because it doesn't have anything resembling a leveling/advancement mechanic.

 

Controlling =/= Role-Playing.

A distinction without a point. And an erroneous one at that. What do you do in Diablo 1 & 2 and in Dungeon Siege 1 & 2 except control a bunch personally faceless toons?

 

 

role-play·ing

n.

An instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role.

 

You don't do that in Mario,

Nonsense. You literally play the role of Mario and save the world. Edited February 8, 2014 by Stun

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

No, you can role play him. If I want to make my Little Mac be a Roberto Duran Clone, then I'll concentrate on a heavy Body attack and occasional hooks to the head. But if I want to make my Little Mac be a Floyd Mayweather clone, then I'll play him differently. I'll jab and jab, dodge right, dodge left...etc.

Excuse me while I jump out of roflcopter.

 

That isn't role-playing anymore than spamming freeze attacks when controlling Sub-Zero in Mortal Kombat is. That is playing the game by controlling a toon.

 

Punchout still isn't an RPG, though, because it doesn't have anything resembling a leveling/advancement mechanic.

Role-Playing does not require an advancement mechanic. Role-Playing Games do not require an adbancement mechanic, they require role-playing. If they required an advancement mechanic, they would be called "advancement mechanic game".

 

A distinction without a point.

Wrong. If the big words confuse you, use a dictionary.

 

And an erroneous one at that.

Wrong. Look up the definition Role-Playing, then come back when you have a rudimentary understanding of it.

 

What do you do in Diablo 1 & 2 and in Dungeon Siege 1 & 2 except control a bunch of toons?

Diablo and Dungeon Siege are hack-and-slash action games, not Role-Playing games, so that isn't relevant.

 

Nonsense, you literally play the role of Mario and save the world.

No, the player controls a toon on a screen. The player does not play a role.

Edited February 8, 2014 by KaineParker

[Bryy]

Kaine, while I agree with your initial point, you are being way too  pedantic.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Bryy

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Kaine, while I agree with your initial point, you are being way to pedantic.

I'm imitating a combination of posters known as Sylvius the Mad and tony ingram while I download Saint's Row 4 from Steam.

 

I'm allowed to have fun damnit!

Edited February 8, 2014 by KaineParker