Another retro blog and another Top 10 list

[Excidium]

What those three games have in common: Character development. It's what defines an RPG.

You can have an RPG without story, or combat or anything else. But an RPG without character development?

It's true that RPGs do tend to have some level of character development. But that is not enough to define a genre. A variety of genres now include stats that go up during play. In fact games in other genres may well have deeper character development mechanics than some RPGs.

Every game can have character development (I'd say it's p. rare to see a game without any sort of character development these days), but RPG is the only genre where it is essential. If you're trying to find something that is exclusive to the RPG genre, then you're just wasting time.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

So why don't sports games make their player stats more accessible and streamlined? It's like they don't want to appeal to modern audiences or something
and make their games first person while you're at it, this isometric soccer view is fucking backwards and only for nostalgics

a google says the fifa games have these x/100 rating stats for every player:

Acceleration
Agility
Balance
Jumping
Reactions
Sprint Speed
Stamina
Strength
Aggression
Att. Positioning
Interceptions
Vision
Ball Control
Crossing
Curve
Dribbling
Finishing
Free Kick Accuracy
Heading
Long Passing
Long Shooting
Marking
(goalkeeper only stats)
Diving
Handling
Kicking
Positioning
Reflexes

shit I bet that touhou soccer game has even more than that
and then skyrim has what 3 stats, only the skills total and that puts skyrim's character development slightly over fifa games
I guess the hidden special skill in rpgs these days is imagination



bros I'd like to see mondblut play a turn based soccer game

 

[Marsal]

King's Bounty: Crossworlds > HoMM3 however

No.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Besides, it isn't just RPGs, it's pretty hard to "define" any genre.

Stuff like Adventure, Shooter, Strategy, etc could fit almost every game in existance.

Adventure I'll grant you is pretty darn vague.

But genre labels like FPS, RTS, TBS, platformer, fighting game, seem to give you an idea how the game will play[1], while "RPG" tells you very little.

Which gets back to my original point: Fallout vs BG2 is legitimately a matter of taste, unless you start to analyze things at a sub genre level.

Each game tried to do different things. Each game largely succeeded at what it tried to do. The things that each game tried to do were "RPG things". So in most cases your answer will to a significant degree depend on your taste in RPGs.

But if we broke it down to a sub genre level, someone could probably make a pretty convincing case that BG2 was a better combatfag RPG while Fallout was a better storyfag RPG.

[1]Admittedly, you can probably come up with a few counter examples like Paradox "RTS" games.

 

[Excidium]

Ninja post delete sure is a terrible thing.

But yeah, I agree with you. The way I see it, genre definitions have less to do with specific game mechanics and more with expectations.

 

[Carrion]

Every game can have character development (I'd say it's p. rare to see a game without any sort of character development these days), but RPG is the only genre where it is essential.

There's a game mode in the PES and FIFA games (along with other sports games like NHL and probably NBA or Madden too) that is all about getting XP and developing your character. There are also game modes where you have to be a manager of an entire team and have to take care of the character development of 30+ players in your team. And here stats really do matter, because even basic actions like running are constantly affected by multiple stats such as acceleration, speed, sprint speed, dribble speed and agility plus other factors like fatigue (again, affected by multiple stats), possession of the ball, pressure given by the opposing team etc. All of the 21 other players on the field are affected by the exact same stats, which makes football games some of the most complex real-time strategy / RPG hybrids on the market.

Some sports games also have things like giving interviews to the press, which means there are dialogue options with actual C&C (be an asshole and you may get traded to some crappy low-tier team on the other side of the world) and a story where you start as a lowly rookie but become a great champion, or an even greater loser. You decide!

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

So, there *are* sport-themed cRPG?

But if we broke it down to a sub genre level, someone could probably make a pretty convincing case that BG2 was a better combatfag RPG while Fallout was a better storyfag RPG.

More like BG2 was a better spellcasterfag RPG. I have found combat itself horribly crude. No defensive/offensive manoeuvres for fighters, no aimed shoots, no critical hit tables...
Just click and watch attacking on auto-pilot. Even no to hit bonuses for flanking and back attacks. Banal. Shit. Boring.

Also, BG2 is much more storyfag than Fallout as it forces you to follow the specific story in a specific sequence - escape the dungeon, lose Imoen, find money, get to Spellhold, lose soul, fight Irenicus and let him escape, go to the Underdark, go to Athkatla, fight Bodhi, go to Suldanessar, fight Irenicus have him escape again, fight Irenicus again.
That and bioware dialogue options are the essence of pure storyfaggotry.

 

[octavius]

More like BG2 was a better spellcasterfag RPG. I have found combat itself horribly crude. No defensive/offensive manoeuvres for fighters, no aimed shoots, no critical hit tables...
Just click and watch attacking on auto-pilot. Even no to hit bonuses for flanking and back attacks. Banal. Shit. Boring.

It seems like you have a very narrow definition of what constitutes good combat; a definition formed by your love for Fallout. And when a new game is not like Fallout it is "Banal. Shit. Boring".
Besides most of what you wrote about BG2 is wrong anyway.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

More like BG2 was a better spellcasterfag RPG. I have found combat itself horribly crude. No defensive/offensive manoeuvres for fighters, no aimed shoots, no critical hit tables...
Just click and watch attacking on auto-pilot. Even no to hit bonuses for flanking and back attacks. Banal. Shit. Boring.

It seems like you have a very narrow definition of what constitutes good combat; a definition formed by your love for Fallout. And when a new game is not like Fallout it is "Banal. Shit. Boring".

Do you realise that a big part of my posts about Fallout are criticism of the combat system? And that I gave Fallout 7/10?
The first place on my cRPG list is occupied by ADOM (9/10) which not only isn't like Fallout but also has lots of mechanics that I normally loathe in cRPGs.

Besides most of what you wrote about BG2 is wrong anyway.

No. It's right. Fighters get combat abilities only in ToB (in opposition to spellcasters that get a zillion of distinct combat abilities (spells) from the start.). Critical hit is just double damage - no bleeding (but there's a sword that is so sharp that it will make you bleed even if you have a stone skin!), no limb damage, etc. Backstabbing bonus is only for rogues. No AC bonuses on level up despite that Thac0 goes up all the time, no AC bonuses for higher weapon proficiency, etc.
(I'm very butthurt about combat in BG2 because I always wanted to play a cool swordmaster like Drizzit or Geralt but couldn't because fighters/rangers/paladins are supposed to be strong and dumb brutes that survive only because of magic armour - character editor to the rescue!).

 

[Mastermind]

More like BG2 was a better spellcasterfag RPG. I have found combat itself horribly crude. No defensive/offensive manoeuvres for fighters, no aimed shoots, no critical hit tables...
Just click and watch attacking on auto-pilot. Even no to hit bonuses for flanking and back attacks. Banal. Shit. Boring.

You mean you found melee crude. Spellcasting is a part of combat too. Anyway, the above is accurate, but I didn't really mind since you have a 6 character party so it's not like there are no tactical options for the party as a whole. I viewed fighters as inflexible but reliable damage dealers. Not that there's much point in bringing a pure fighter along.

 

[Coyote]

Besides, it isn't just RPGs, it's pretty hard to "define" any genre.

Stuff like Adventure, Shooter, Strategy, etc could fit almost every game in existance.

Adventure I'll grant you is pretty darn vague.

It's really not, though. Just because people around here like to misapply the label (and "action-adventure") to games they don't want to call RPGs doesn't mean that the genre itself is vaguely-defined. Keep in mind that, at least in the realm of gaming, it's used as a descriptor for a type of gameplay that originated in the game Adventure, not a type of narrative (i.e. it doesn't mean "any game where you go on an adventure" any more than RPG means "any game where you play a role").

Go to any adventure gaming website with a list of 20 random games and ask them which ones are adventure games and I guarantee you there will be more agreement than if you do the same here with RPGs. They may complain about recent adventure games being shitty - or more likely, too easy - but they generally won't try to pretend a game's not an adventure just because it doesn't meet their ideal for how an adventure game should be designed. (Not saying people here necessarily do that when claiming games aren't RPGs, although some clearly do; there's also a lot less ambiguity/debate about the defining features of the genre in the case of adventure games. Which is pretty much my point.)