Okay, then I'm slightly worried about where my beloved Fire Emblem series falls. While it has a much more to offer in terms of stats:
... Each character's inventory is limited, similar to XCOM:
However, there's an inventory that all characters have access to between stages and where unnecessary weapons and healing items go:
Fire Emblem was one of the first sRPGs on the market (first game was made in 1990) and practically gave birth to the whole subgenre, so I can't accept any definition that doesn't count it as an sRPG.
Well, you've said it yourself, the game has perfectly reasonable stats. And, unlike xcom, has a traditional inventory. Another thing that is important to note, it has proper loot, unlike Xcom, where items gained at the end of a fight are just resources that let you make actual items and research tech.
Probably should add Loot as well to the, as I said before, absolutely flawless no-way-it-can-ever-be-wrong system.
P.S. I pity the fool that actually reads up on the however-many pages of precious server memory we've wasted on this.
Probably should add Loot as well to the, as I said before, absolutely flawless no-way-it-can-ever-be-wrong system.
P.S. I pity the fool that actually reads up on the however-many pages of precious server memory we've wasted on this.
Last edited:
A hard one, then: Alpha Protocol. Widely considered an action RPG, complete with a leveling system similar to Mass Effect's, but the inventory is more like Enemy Unknown's. I can't find a picture of it, but it's the same kind of deal where you can bring a few grenades or an EMP.
And hey, I think this thread is totally awesome and should be required reading for newbies.
And hey, I think this thread is totally awesome and should be required reading for newbies.
Haven't played but that's probably an attempt to avoid slow and imprecise rpg inventories.
Which should be the law in action rpg's with shooter elements and vicecersa.
I think forums are the worse kind of things newbies could pick since everything is buried in verbosity when they could pick any design pdf document on the net. Plus eccessive feedback tends to ruin games to retard difficulties
And it's totally not an issue when subgenres lack elements to the rpg genre
Last edited:
As I said... it's quite a few pages back now, we have the same problem with ME2 and 3. They have no inventory. So probably replace Inventory with Loot (as I suggested back then). Or maybe make it Inventory/Loot. Like controlling single character/small group. But probably drop Inventory altogether, as an Inventory already implies loot, so using loot makes it more specific.
Last edited:
it's loadouts then
specifically that's why the inventory needs to be fast and precise in most games
Last edited:
You've been up all day/night (whatever it is you people are living in) making 7 pages worth of this discussion?? :wat:
Not critizicing here, it's just that... I'm not gonna read through all that, ok?... but it seems like it has escalated a lot and everyone is warring arguments. Are you sure people you are trying to understand each other's points?
Not critizicing here, it's just that... I'm not gonna read through all that, ok?... but it seems like it has escalated a lot and everyone is warring arguments. Are you sure people you are trying to understand each other's points?
Definitely not. I stopped understanding about four pages ago.
Hey, I gave a little ground not so long ago and incorporated some of Reptile's ideas into my own argument after coming to the conclusion that his expanded definition of an RPG had some good ideas. It's not like I lack the stubbornness to refuse to give an inch when so inclined, so I totally deserve credit for that.
I think we've gotten to a pretty good place with two main camps: the whimsical side that sadbanana is in that takes the words "role-playing" literally, and the more grounded and attractive side that has come up with core guidelines that define and encapsulate the genre without excluding previous entries. Which is basically what this thread was about, n'est pas?
I think we've gotten to a pretty good place with two main camps: the whimsical side that sadbanana is in that takes the words "role-playing" literally, and the more grounded and attractive side that has come up with core guidelines that define and encapsulate the genre without excluding previous entries. Which is basically what this thread was about, n'est pas?
If you're referring to the, quite obviously, flawless 'Stats + Upgrades + Controlling Single Char/Small Group + Inventory/Loot + Plot that drives the player' system, then I beg to differ.
FF has stats, upgrades and inventory/loot:
It most definitely has a plot that is determining what the player does in the relevant mode. And you control a small group of characters.
Why Final Fantasy games (at least the good ones) ARE RPGs:
In FFI you decided what your party would be comprised of: it's not very different from a group of friends deciding their roles, althought this time it's one player controlling them all. You could make an all black mages party and you would be renouncing to the strong warrior who can wield excalibur and your economy would be a little bad with all those magic tomes and potions you would have to buy.
In FFII they tried a somewhat realistic but very exploitable upgrade system in which the more you used a skill the better it would get. They also implemented a more streamlined and robust keyword system simmilar to that in games like Ultima. You could choose what to ask people about once you learned a keyword and everyone had an oppinion on anything. Unlike in ultima where you may ask a swrodsmith for an anvil to get the "I don't know what that is" for an answer.
In every game you have chracters like these:
- Terra has
the half-esper quality which means one of her parents was an esper and so gains the ability to transform into her esper form[/SPOLER]. She has stats that tell you she is inclined to magic attacks, etc.
- Gau has the uncouth or raised by beasts quality and a very low level in the common language. That means that in the very scripted dialogues and, heh, charisma based situations, he doesn't behave in a civilised manner, but he being an intelligent boy and a survivor and having lived his past life as he has, he can learn things from animals and monsters.
- Cyan's qualities involve a strong code of honor. He had relatives and a kingdom to protect and he failed them. It's also so strict that when faced in situations when he is being seduced, he can't help but blush and reject the person in a very gentleman way. He also knows bushido techniques for battle that other people aren't versed with, even if they can competently wield a sword.
- Gau has the uncouth or raised by beasts quality and a very low level in the common language. That means that in the very scripted dialogues and, heh, charisma based situations, he doesn't behave in a civilised manner, but he being an intelligent boy and a survivor and having lived his past life as he has, he can learn things from animals and monsters.
- Cyan's qualities involve a strong code of honor. He had relatives and a kingdom to protect and he failed them. It's also so strict that when faced in situations when he is being seduced, he can't help but blush and reject the person in a very gentleman way. He also knows bushido techniques for battle that other people aren't versed with, even if they can competently wield a sword.
It isn't an RPG unless you can made decisions in the game that will effect the story as well as ending.. Having stats and inventory does not make an RPG..
For instance, many people call Diablo games action RPG (or "aRPG" to be short) but it is just an action fantasy game with RPG elements.. Mass Effect games were action RPG.. (First two game, third one was a bullshit action game.. Decisions you made effected the story very little and it barely effected the ending at all.. Game instead looked how many points you gathered from the multiplayer and it only changed if you saw a vague breath scene or not at the end..)
If it makes that single criteria above, i consider it an RPG.. Even if you can't create your own character and if there is no inventory..
For instance, many people call Diablo games action RPG (or "aRPG" to be short) but it is just an action fantasy game with RPG elements.. Mass Effect games were action RPG.. (First two game, third one was a bullshit action game.. Decisions you made effected the story very little and it barely effected the ending at all.. Game instead looked how many points you gathered from the multiplayer and it only changed if you saw a vague breath scene or not at the end..)
If it makes that single criteria above, i consider it an RPG.. Even if you can't create your own character and if there is no inventory..
Bolllocks... My gun skill is at 50 out of 100, my gun skill is 3 wafers out of 5......... it's the same bloody thing. Sure the numbers method "might" allow you to get a little more fidgety with where the milestones are located, but thats the only difference.
If thats the case, and if this thread is any indication whatsoever, then the term RPG as it pertains to video games is utterly useless and doesn't actually describe anything.
In fact, my trepidation has returned, as the popular consensus of examples on the thread would seem to indicate that a video game rpg's defining characteristic is slow, repetetive, grinding, and boring as hell, and resembles an actual RPG less now then when it did back on the NES.
Nonsense, Wisdom. Don't you realise the increasing your stats and adding upgradeable stuff to your inventory is, like, half of an RPG? HALF, MAN. MAYBE MORE.
You get grinding. You get grinding NOW. I'd say we need a poll. YES.
Dragon, why wasn't this a poll?
It is a poll. It's just that it's a poll with "Enter your response in the text box" rather than a set of questions.
On the other hand, if we keep getting people like wassisname who posted above you, thinking that 10 people saying one thing = 1 person saying the same thing 10 times = consensus, maybe the other kind of poll would have been a good idea.
See? you're coming around to agreeing with me. it was the chocolate, wasn't it? Now, let's go punish Redge. Together.
Did you know, I read that every time a poll gets created, a puppy dies? Isn't that wonderful? Poopy little bastards. Come. Help me reduce the poop in the world. Make a poll today.
Also,er, what makes an RPG is the player.
It's Zen.
So jRPGs and a number of linear sRPGs and cRPGs aren't RPGs, then, despite being considered so by virtually everyone up until this point?
Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. The wafers can exist in an RPG, but I'd argue that they don't count as statistics without numbers backing them up like in Alpha Protocol and the first Mass Effect. That way, you actually know what it means when you upgrade a wafer that raises your health 15%. If there are no numbers as a point of reference, however, that the wafers are meaningless and not RPG-ish unless they function as numbers (as in, one wafer = 1, two wafers = 2, and you have the opportunity to use that information in a meaningful way).
Except for the definition fitting current and past games that are considered RPGs while not fitting games like, say, Call of Duty or Road Rash. How is that useless?