RPGs cannot have action-based movement or combat, Fallout: New Vegas is not an RPG

[Roguey]

The most telling thing in the entire thread that shows this is simply bias and wishful thinking is how nobody is defending Alpha Protocol and why people are saying Bethesda's Fallouts aren't RPGs, but F:NV is. Alpha Protocol is basically the same thing as F:NV - character development, stats, branching narrative, quests, etc.

All these things are role playing games. Some are better at it than others.

 

[MajorMace]

A lot of verbiage that just shows you simply don't understand how genres as categories are defined and reached. The most telling thing in the entire thread that shows this is simply bias and wishful thinking is how nobody is defending Alpha Protocol and why people are saying Bethesda's Fallouts aren't RPGs, but F:NV is. Alpha Protocol is basically the same thing as F:NV - character development, stats, branching narrative, quests, etc. The same things people are saying makes F:NV an RPG. When called out they say "but Alpha Protocol doesn't have enough character development and F:NV is better than Bethesda, so it's an RPG!", if that isn't arbitrary I don't know what is. The "if F:NV is an RPG, then Fallout 1 can't be one" is exactly the most damning thing of all, because they aren't the same thing.

sigh no you're the one here who doesn't seem to acknowledge that genres can be defined by something else that retrospective scrutiny. For instance, marketing. And the very genre you brought up in this thread, immersive world or whatever, in a shining example of a non-genre, which exists solely to get people's interest by avoiding the use of traditional terms who would do the trick just fine. You casually linked me a list regrouping open worlds and levels based games, horror atmospheric games, plain shooters, rpgs etc whose only common point seems to be the first person perspective and the fact that shooting isn't the alpha and omega of the gameplay (yet the lists contain Far Cry 2 ?).
I have no idea who you're referring to with Alpha protocol and bethesda games, but from the little I've read itt, it's quite the opposite.

You're stubbornly ignoring people who have 0 problem (and never had) considering bethesda rpgs as rpgs (because they are), like myself when I criticised this made up genre you brought up, and only acknowledging those who claim they aren't. And you do this specifically because it's - at this point, really - the only reason your thesis could make a semblance of sense.

If you want to have a little reductio ad absurdum about this, let's all ask ourselves : what's the best immersive world game ? Is it Far cry 2 ? Dishonored ? Fallout 3 ? Alien : Isolation ?
and most importantly, why ?

ps : before you use this post as yet another proof of existence of a phenomenon that doesn't exist, the only reason i'm not talking about alpha protocol is because I haven't played the damn game, and have no idea what it's like. All I know is that it has shit gameplay.

 

[frajaq]

Reading some of Lacrymas's post legit feels like coming from a crazy/going senile person

 

[Lacrymas]

If "Immersive Sim" is a made-up genre (it isn't, you hearing it for the first time now doesn't mean it is) because it's too broad, "action-RPG" is too, but that was obvious. Nobody has refuted any points I have made, it's not "because at this point I have no choice but to say shady/dishonest things", everything people have brought up is arbitrary and I have no idea what more I can say to add to this discussion. Nobody has managed to persuade me that my stance is incorrect or unstable, "doh, I don't agree with your list of criteria" isn't enough, quite the contrary, so this was a complete waste of time. Actually, it has inspired me to be even more militant.

 

[MajorMace]

And the fact I only heard about it now, even if it's been around since warren spector decided to sell his games as such back then, should tell you everything about the relevance of this classification.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

I didn't even read his arguments or the thread, but that's quite rich coming from someone who said Gold Box games aren't RPGs.

I don’t think there’s anything intellectually dishonest about pushing a very restrictive definition of the genre, although it might be stupid or ill-advised or just plain wrong. What’s intellectually dishonest is pretending not to understand why other people think you’re wrong, especially when you used to agree with them.

I never said my Sawyerist definition (RPGs = games with role playing/interactive storytelling) was self evidently true. I certainly never pretended to be baffled by the fact that people consider blobbers or the gold box games RPGs. It’s not like I called them strategy games based on p&p RPGs, although I sort of wish I’d come up with something that pithy like the guys from Looking Glass did. Pretty sure I never called people idiots for using the standard 1980s definition of CRPG. It would have been intellectualy dishonest if I’d said something that was, perhaps, too edgy by half and then acted shocked—shocked!—that anyone thought I was being retarded.

And I quickly conceded that, sure, we can call them RPGs so long as we come up with some kind of distinction for later RPGs that do have lots of reactivity, dialogue trees, quests with multiple solutions, and C&C. If that’s NOT part of what makes Fallout or Arcanum an RPG, then I’d really like another term for it so that I can concisely apply it to other games.

 

[Bigg Boss]

The distinction is calling them either good or bad RPG's. Bethesda games are shit RPG's. Old Fallout is a good RPG. JRPG's are shallow RPG's. Diablo is a RPG with no C&C but good hack and slash gameplay/character building. The contrarian tendency to want to disqualify games you don't like as RPG's is absurd, and it isn't an insult but it is autistic as hell and I want the fucking buttons goddamn that robot is fucking appropriate.

 

[Matticus]

There's always going to be some amount of bleed-through of the player's personality and skillset into their character's traits. It doesn't just apply to dexterity-based action games. Dumb characters will often make marginally or significantly better decisions if the player is smarter than the character they are roleplaying. Calling out one element over another seems disingenuous. The only thing I care about is how many options the game gives me to do what I think my character would do.

 

[Lacrymas]

I like VtMB, Deus Ex and System Shock 2, but I don't call them RPGs, so let's get that out of the way quickly.

 

[Bigg Boss]

Dialog, stats, some form of non linearity/C&C, worldbuilding, character progression make a RPG. The combat can be whatever the fuck you want, your taste can vary - real time, turn based, fucking FPS...There I figured it out. I solved the Codex Puzzle that nobody could crack.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Dialog, stats, some form of non linearity/C&C, worldbuilding, character progression make a RPG. The combat can be whatever the fuck you want, but your tastes can vary - real time, turn based, fucking FPS.. There I figured it out. I solved the Codex Puzzle that nobody could crack.

See, I agree with you, but someone is inevitably going to ask, “what about linear dungeon crawls with no real dialogue like Wizardry 1-3? How can Wizardry not be a CRPG when it created the genre?” And they will have a good point. Steel yourself for many retadred ratings when you try to explain that the genre evolved dramatically over its first 20 years, or that early on CRPGs were aiming to mimic p&p but the computers of the time were too underpowered to copy much more than combat.

Is Ultima Underworld an RPG?

Not according to Lacrymas.

 

[The Great ThunThun*]

Wizardry did not create cRPGs. D&D did. Literally. Not even the oldest game to implement D&D.

 

[Matticus]

I like VtMB, Deus Ex and System Shock 2, but I don't call them RPGs, so let's get that out of the way quickly.

I would argue that Deus Ex and System Shock 2 aren't really pure immersive sims either, though. They started incorporating skill points and stats while mixing in elements of System Shock 1 -- a game unique enough that Spector felt the need to invent the label "Immersive Sim". But from my understanding of the label, it was meant to be a game where the player is specifically unrestricted by character traits. The player is meant to be given unparalleled choice: being able to choose one playstyle one moment and another playstyle the next. If the player is using a pistol and finds a laser rifle and wants to use it, there is nothing hindering this decision. Their character can use both equally well. If this is indeed the definition of "Immersive Sim", then it has been bastardized too.

 

[Bigg Boss]

See, I agree with you, but someone is inevitably going to ask, “what about linear dungeon crawls with no real dialogue like Wizardry 1-3? How can Wizardry not be a CRPG when it created the genre?” And they will have a good point. Steel yourself for many retadred ratings when you try to explain that the genre evolved dramatically over its first 20 years, or that early on CRPGs were aiming to mimic p&p but the computers of the time were too underpowered to copy much more than combat.



Not according to Lacrymas.

Because it is on a scale. Someone more graphically inclined could draw it up...

It's obvious really people are just too monocled/edgy to admit it at times.

If the combat is fairly deep with character progression and sufficient world building it still qualifies amirite?

Also Immersive Sim? Wtf is this for a shit?

 

[Sigourn]

If "Immersive Sim" is a made-up genre (it isn't, you hearing it for the first time now doesn't mean it is) because it's too broad, "action-RPG" is too, but that was obvious.

"Immersive sim" is not a genre, but a quality. A quality a few games have, such as Deus Ex: in any other game, going to the lady's bathroom raises no eyebrows, but not in Deus Ex. But it's just one element out of many that Ion Storm added and which give the impression of a real world. Eventually, more games started doing this. Wikipedia even cites BioShock and Fallout 3.

"Action RPG" is not a genre, but RPG is. New Vegas is an RPG. Calling it an "action RPG" just describes what kind of RPG it is, just like "arcade racer" describes what kind of racing game a racing game is.

Nobody has refuted any points I have made, it's not "because at this point I have no choice but to say shady/dishonest things", everything people have brought up is arbitrary and I have no idea what more I can say to add to this discussion.

It is as arbitrary as your own definition of what an RPG is. Except we don't claim New Vegas is more like Quake than it is like Fallout. This is nonsensical and only someone who hasn't played New Vegas could honestly say this (seriously, if I could I would upload videos comparing a playthrough of Quake, a playthrough of New Vegas, and a playthrough of Fallout just to prove you how much "Quake" New Vegas is when it comes to the minute-to-minute gameplay and not just "first person perspective and you can use guns!").

 

[Sigourn]

Fairfax are you going to elaborate on why my comment was shit?

 

[Reapa]

you are such retards.

If you don't control a party of different characters with different skills and manual level ups, it's not an rpg. Unless of course it's a roguelike which is an rpg even if it's not an rpg. if needed i'd argue that a roguelike is an rpg because you are expected to die, so you are expected to play more than one character even if not at the same time.
if the game in question is a real time game and an rpg, it's an action rpg and most probably shit.
if it rtwp it's not an action rpg because you can pause, giving you time to do the required thinking for each of your characters and thus roleplay them.
if it's turn based, it's obvious.

New vegas is an action rpg. how is that possible if you only control one character? simple, c&c. if the game expects you to replay it and offers different results for different choices you can roleplay it. same as with roguelikes. one could still argue about how cosmetic the consequences are, but i won't go there just now.

 

[Fairfax]

Fairfax are you going to elaborate on why my comment was shit?

"Immersive sim" is a stupid, arbitrary buzzword to begin with, and you used Wikipedia to defend it.

 

[Bigg Boss]

you are such retards.

If you don't control a party of different characters with different skills and manual level ups, it's not an rpg. Unless of course it's a roguelike which is an rpg even if it's not an rpg. if needed i'd argue that a roguelike is an rpg because you are expected to die, so you are expected to play more than one character even if not at the same time.
if the game in question is a real time game and an rpg, it's an action rpg and most probably shit.
if it rtwp it's not an action rpg because you can pause, giving you time to do the required thinking for each of your characters and thus roleplay them.
if it's turn based, it's obvious.

New vegas is an action rpg. how is that possible if you only control one character? simple, c&c. if the game expects you to replay it and offers different results for different choices you can roleplay it. same as with roguelikes. one could still argue about how cosmetic the consequences are, but i won't go there just now.

Where do these people come from? DnD PnP isn't a RPG because you only control one character.

 

[Sigourn]

"Immersive sim" is a stupid, arbitrary buzzword to begin with, and you used Wikipedia to defend it.

When did I say the opposite? I said immersive sim was a quality, because as a "genre" it means nothing. What at the time used to be a "genre" (it never was) nowadays is meaningless because more and more games are trying to be immersive in their depiction of reality. Case in point: Wikipedia says Fallout 3 is an "immersive sim", which goes to show that just about any game that tries to mimic reality falls into that qualification ("quality", not genre).

Back in 1997 you could say Thief was an immersive simulation, but the genre always was Stealth. Deus Ex was another immersive simulation. But these are just qualities of these games (unsurprisingly, look at who developed them) that other games started imitating later on. Imitating life as opposed to gameplay mechanics: in Skyrim, if you drop something an NPC will pick it up and hand it over to you. Do that in Baldur's Gate, and NPCs don't give a damn. Why? Because Bethesda picked some cues from these older games that tried to be realistic in ways other developers had barely (or never) thought of.

 

[Master]

I have to agree with OP. In times like these, when everyone and their grandmother is an RPG, we must accept a harsher definition.

 

[frajaq]

Why do we even need harsher definitions in the first place, can't we just get over the fact that RPGs covers a very broad and diverse spectrum of games?

 

[Matticus]

"Immersive sim" is a stupid, arbitrary buzzword to begin with, and you used Wikipedia to defend it.

I would only agree with you in the sense that it has evolved into a stupid, arbitrary buzzword used for marketing purposes -- but that wasn't always the case.

 

[Roguey]

Immersive sim was and continues to be a design philosophy.

 

[FreeKaner]

Why do we even need harsher definitions in the first place, can't we just get over the fact that RPGs covers a very broad and diverse spectrum of games?

Diversity is our strength.