[caster]

I would only add this little thing for now.
About Witcher and whether its action or story driven....

Its combat is action driven. The rest of the game is story driven. For all its seemingly numerous options you are pretty constricted by the story in what can you choose to do.
For most part it did pull this off without any bigger hicups but there were places where it could have had more options and outcomes to choose from.

But, since it is their first game basicaly created out of moding atempt i can forgive all of that.
Hopefully they will expand and build upon these things in the sequel or expansion that will surely come.
And stop Atari butchering english voiceovers again.

Im hoping for more tactical options in combat and more defensive and dodging abilities of enemies at the least and more choices and more areas to explore overall.

If they dont do that we will know they sold out and blah, blah, blah...

Anyway i see the story as one of the most important parts of a good RPG. But not a constricting story.
Something more in the sense of Fallout where you had a story but at the same time by choosing what you do and how you also created your own while you played.
For me the story must be good enough to motivate the player but it is also the setting itself and all that influences which is really... everything in the game.

Ability to clearly influence your suroundings, different factions, cities or other people in the game is also very important for an RPG. I quite like what i read about AoD faction system and how you will be able to influence factions and their standings and relations to others but you will never be able to become the master of those factions.
Which means: you can influence the world, but you cannot control it.

[Aik]

If anything should be considered an adventure game masquerading as an RPG, it's The Witcher. The system is such a nominal addition to the game they might as well have dumped it and given the game proper action combat, then called it an action-adventure game instead. The presence of choices and consequences is as much of a bonus to an adventure game (probably any kind of game with a plot) as to RPGs.

Not that it's a bad game at all, it's very good. I just don't think that as an RPG it's very strong. The system of an RPG - one of the genres few strong distinguishing features - should have a more central effect to the game than to add simple combat bonuses. In a dialogue, C&C, and story heavy game like The Witcher, the system should really effect those areas, which despite the painful amounts of combat I'd consider to be the core of the game.

I'm not saying that The Witcher isn't an RPG, just that its use of an element that's essential to RPGs is very poor. It's not like in Fallout where if you stripped out the system you'd end up having to dramatically rework the game. The Witcher would work (perhaps even better) as an action-adventure game.

Though I don't think that there was ever anyone claiming this, it also shows that C&C in and of itself is enough to make an RPG. Throw out the nominal system in The Witcher and no one would consider it to be an RPG, just a remarkable adventure game.

[Claw]

I like the definition of RPG in the artile. I just have some trouble reconciliating it with my love for Ultima VII, where traditional roleplaying mechanics had no value for me. I just had to train my skills up to the point where I could reliably survive combat and then the game was mostly about exploring and talking to people. Crazy.

I disagree with this. I think an Action RPG is a game in which player skill plays a large role. Yes, there is often a lot of combat, but that's not the crux of the matter. TOEE is all about killing stuff, but I don't think it makes sense to call it an action RPG. Similarly, The Witcher has less combat than NWN2 or even MOTB, but I still consider it an Action RPG because of the real-time combat heavily influenced by the player's timing.

Ultima Underworld was the first great action RPG, IMO, and it did not have an emphasis on combat.

To me an action RPG is one where parts of the game, most commonly the combat, require some kind of real time response. Reaction time and player skill becomes a factor in the prowess of the character being played, to a greater or lesser degree. You don't just make decisions, but also take part in the execution of resulting actions. I always think of this as an analogue of action films with the fast paced 'action'.

I didn't think so many people shared this belief. I would certainly like this to be what Action-RPG means.



I got nothing.

[Priapist]

[snip]

Some interesting thoughts, and I think that's a pretty valid argument. I found even on hard difficulty much of the combat wasn't much of an obstacle, and not something you'd really want to play on it's own, nor do I particular care about advancing my character, since it's pretty irrelevant. So that really leaves social interaction and decision making as the core gameplay. I'm not quite sure I'd lump that in with adventure games, simply because adventure games generally have similar social interactions, but the gameplay is generally puzzle based.

But that would be another semantic debate that's not worth getting into, since I basically agree with you anyway.

[Ixis]

Next-Generation – a concept used to describe a game offering pretty graphics, but no gameplay; quickly becoming a synonym with Western RPG.

Action RPG – game revolving around killing stuff; quickly becoming a synonym with Western RPG.

Interesting read, and while I will admit I was unreceptive to your ideas (mostly from your RPS interview) I admit I agree with a lot of what you wrote, and concepts I held about RPGs personally for some time now.

However I'd like to point out that games offering pretty graphics but no gameplay, and games revolving around killing stuff quickly are all staples of Japanese RPGs. In fact, I can't think of a single Japanese RPG aside from Mother 3, Paper Mario and Tales of Symphonia that actually had interesting/fun/unique gameplay. Of course your post never explicitly states that these are only matters that affect western RPGs, the notion that one might find a real gem amongst Japanese RPGs simply because it has turn-based combat is incorrect.

Japanese games, regardless of the genre, use the same gameplay of games from 1984 or are culturally strange and undecipherable to anyone who isn't familiar with Japanese culture. Final Fantasy 8 is the same as Final Fantasy 3 except they threw in a few more options into the menu system that creates random and long Windows Music Player visualizations. In your RPS interview you comment on the apparent fall of XCOM because they hired more and more people who weren't adding anything gameplaywise, and the same thing is true with JRPGs (except concentrated one million times because the most popular RPG they've made is Dragon Quest which has done nothing BUT add prettier and prettier graphics begrudgingly because while TB can be fun it's still nice to throw in extra bits like bouncing cleavage, apparently.)

Not to mention, judging from your definition no JRPG has ever truly been an RPG. Fun action games with RPG-like gameplay, but not RPGs. Something I'm willing to get behind!

[zhirzzh]

Next-Generation – a concept used to describe a game offering pretty graphics, but no gameplay; quickly becoming a synonym with Western RPG.

Action RPG – game revolving around killing stuff; quickly becoming a synonym with Western RPG.

the notion that one might find a real gem amongst Japanese RPGs simply because it has turn-based combat is incorrect.

Other than the ones you mentioned try: FFT (tactics combat), Star Ocean (definitely unique. Good is arguable.), Fire Emblem.

I'm writing my own long post on this, but am not done yet.

[henrycole]

I cant believe all the content in this thread about RPG knowledge. Im going to read all that tomorrow, hopefully.

[Anonxeuix]

That's one of the longest posts I've ever read - though it was a good read. I liked your 'dictionary' by the way. The only term I don't agree with is European RPGs, at least after playing The Witcher I felt like I accomplished something, could have been the story, or the fact that I really grew to love Geralt, so this EURPG gets a thumbs up from me. And the term which I really really agreed with is......ding ding, "Immersion". I really hate it when someone wants to win an argument and throws that word in there, like "Immersion breaking" or "Really immersive!".

EDIT: Oh my god...I just bumped a 7 month thread, I never realised it was THAT old, since it was still on the first page on this section. Sorry lads.

[Vince]

Not a big deal. It's a discussion site. If you have something to say, who cares how old a thread is?

[Wrath of Dagon]

To me an RPG is any game that involves player choice beyond whether to take out the Elite first or shoot the grunts.

[Anonxeuix]

My definition of an RPG is a game where I can take on several roles, and be able to play through the game in different ways every time, considering the game mechanics allow me to play the game differently. If I'm an assassin, I'd expect to be able to play ALL my game as an assassin. If I'm a diplomat, I'd expect to be able to talk my way through ALL the game.

As for other game mechanics, such as camera perspective, combat et cetera, they are important, but I would not use them to define an RPG, but rather I would use them to rank the RPG according to my tastes. So if I prefer TB combat instead of RT combat, and RPG Y uses RT combat, I would not say "This is not an RPG", but I would say "I like this RPG less than RPG X, as I prefer TB combat".

[Morbus]

RPG = a game that is focused on creating and/or developing characters' body, mind and/or social life. The Sims is NOT a role-playing game, although it has lots of role-playing. Just the same, Diablo is a role-playing game, even though it has very little role-play.

Also, I rule, and anyone who disagrees with me (save from AoD's team and myself) should be cast off from existense.

[FireStomp]

Also, I rule, and anyone who disagrees with me (save from AoD's team and myself) should be cast off from existense.

You disagree with yourself on the subject of how much you rule?

[Wrath of Dagon]

The Sims is not an RPG because you're not playing a character, and any strategy/simulation game is not an RPG for that reason, even though they usually have lots of player choice.

[Oscar]

RPG = a game that is focused on creating and/or developing characters' body, mind and/or social life. The Sims is NOT a role-playing game, although it has lots of role-playing. Just the same, Diablo is a role-playing game, even though it has very little role-play.

Also, I rule, and anyone who disagrees with me (save from AoD's team and myself) should be cast off from existense.

I think that you just defined The Sims... The game is focused on the development of your character's body through excercise, his mind by learning different skills, and mostly, his social life!

Joking aside, I don't have the need to define and put a label on games. And with some games it's a fruitless excercise, IMO. Games like GTA or The Sims go beyond the common labels we could put on the games of yore, and they became a category on their own. Perhaps we could label them "simulators". The Sims is a "Life Simulator", and GTA is a "Crime Simulator", but like I said, they are almost a category on their own. In a way, they created a genre.