If I was beamdog, I'd go full 2d isometric (or similar), including what they did with Neverwinter Nights: release an excellent and easy-to-use editor, create the game following a modular easy-to-mod design, and let the fans create their own (this time) isometric adventures, upload them in some sort of steam workshop, etc.
To an extent it sounds like you just described what Sword Coast Legends (https://swordcoast.com/) says it will be when it comes out.
If I was beamdog, I'd go full 2d isometric (or similar), including what they did with Neverwinter Nights: release an excellent and easy-to-use editor, create the game following a modular easy-to-mod design, and let the fans create their own (this time) isometric adventures, upload them in some sort of steam workshop, etc.
To an extent it sounds like you just described what Sword Coast Legends (https://swordcoast.com/) says it will be when it comes out.
"Says" being the key word. With randomised dungeons and no conversation trees, what SCL really is is a Diabolo clone.
First off it's not bg3. It's and expansion to bg1. They're not going to have the last 30 hours of the game be in 3D. That would be very strange. And jarring. And awful. Secondly they don't really have the resources.
Not to mention that they will be using the Infinity engine, which was specifically designed with isometric in mind. In order to go full 3D they would need to create/use an entirely different engine. Which wouldn't fit in at all with their other two titles.
I am a complete newbie in the world of RPG games. Having played only RTS and TBS games for over 15 years, my idea for an RPG was "something like Diablo" and DOTA 1....
So in the last year I have played (finished) BG EE, BG2 EE, IWD EE and (not finished) PoE.
A month ago I started playing NWN and NWN 2.
My gosh are THEY slow paced! The battles look like some sort of a funny dance between two people. The tactical element of moving around and placing yourself/companions in good spots is almost completely out, or better said, way too difficult to implement/se. While I try to move my dudes around (NWN 2) fighting with the wanky camera, the battle is over.
I have the feeling that for time time it takes to do one NWN2 battle, I could have done 3 battles in BG with the same group and same opponents...
NWN seems to be a rinse and repeat of "summon a critter, move a little bit so the critter can soak up damage, then click and kill".
Don't get me wrong, I like the graphics of NWN2, I know NWN has a gazilion of mods and some great people working on it but I just cringe every time there is a battle.
I prefer BG style of fast paced and tactically challenging (especially with SCS) combat all day long. And I think this is only possible because you can see your guys from that isometric perspective.
So I was quite happy to see that PoE could deliver really good looking graphics while still providing the isometric perspective. Really, I think that good, party-based RPG just have to be isometric, the same way that all good RTS have to be isometric, if they want to make the best experience out of combat.
Also, isometric has 2 other benefits: It ages much better than full 3D and you need less hardware resources. ..At least if it is not Pillars of Eternity.. Anyways, being able on low-hardware computers widens the possible buyers.
This is a VERY good point. Without having any data to back it up, I think that the majority of the RPG crowd are not the people who want to play the latest FPS with the latest videocard out there.
@iamcelestial With respect, I disagree that the "majority of the RPG crowd" don't want to play 3D games with nice graphics. Perhaps the "majority of people who only like old 2D games" maybe.
I'm old (in gamer terms). I grew up with Pong, Asteroids and Spacewar. I've played hundreds of RPG's over those years, and just about all of my favorite games are RPGs of some form. I love the IE games, I love the 2D Fallout games.
But I also love Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, 3D Fallouts, DAI and a heap of MMORPGs. I say, if you count yourself as a member of the "RPG crowd", you have to have played many of the great 3D RPG's that have been released, ergo, you have reasonable computer hardware (or have had, at some point).
I also disagree that 2D ages better than 3D, particularly if that 2D is bitmap based and not vector based. All my old 2D games (without resolution patches) are a blurry mess on modern large resolution flat screen monitors. Taking something that is < 32 pixels high and drawing it at 500+ pixels is just never going to look good. Early 3D has it's own issues, I agree.. but most modern 3D scales really well to hardware upgrades. Will it transition nicely into holographic direct to brain rendering of the future? Who can say..
My gosh are THEY slow paced! The battles look like some sort of a funny dance between two people. The tactical element of moving around and placing yourself/companions in good spots is almost completely out, or better said, way too difficult to implement/se. While I try to move my dudes around (NWN 2) fighting with the wanky camera, the battle is over.
I have the feeling that for time time it takes to do one NWN2 battle, I could have done 3 battles in BG with the same group and same opponents...
Don't get me wrong, I like the graphics of NWN2, I know NWN has a gazilion of mods and some great people working on it but I just cringe every time there is a battle.
I prefer BG style of fast paced and tactically challenging (especially with SCS) combat all day long. And I think this is only possible because you can see your guys from that isometric perspective.
Strategy Mode fully zoomed out at ¾ perspective would get it closest to the Infinity Engine perspective appearance and scrolling behavior, though I personally prefer Exploration Mode fully zoomed out at ¾ perspective so that the camera is centered on the selected character and I can rotate the field of view with the left & right arrows and change the zoom with either the scroll wheel or the up & down arrows plus adjust the field of view perspective with the Page Up & Page Down keys. I've never had a problem with the battles with that setup, the Hotkeys make it very easy. A properly tweaked TonyK's AI does wonders. Baldur's Gate Reloaded and the Icewind Dale remake are amazing.
I had problems getting Baldur's Gate Reloaded to run correctly too until I made sure that there was no pre-existing files or folders in the in the override folder of both the game install folder and the ~\Documents\Neverwinter Nights 2\override folder, after that it ran fine.
I love the Infinity Isometric style but do you think it's a little dated? I mean should Beamdog go the full 3D experience like the Witcher and Skyrim, I know it's hard to control 6 characters viewing from the protagonist view in 3D but coming into 2016 I think it's time for a new outlook so the company can keep making games for the future in this fast paced gaming industry.
... Tactical party-based gameplay = isometric view is necessary. Single-hero action-based gameplay = 3D camera/ 3rd person camera is best.
And no, it's not hard to control 6 characters in 3rd-person view, it's painful, aggravating and unintuitive. People REALLY need to stop asking for Skyrim clones from every single new RPG.
You say, you know "t's hard to control 6 characters viewing from the protagonist view in 3D". well, i tell you it is impossible. There are really good games there like Skyrim or Witcher, but those are not real RPG's, they are action/rpg hybrids (which isn't a quality statement, but a genre classification).
I wish I could Like and Agree this paragraph more than once. Emphasis mine. Though I disagree with the Witcher games. Those are true RPGs, while not party or turn-based, they have true roleplaying with choices that leads to consequences, which is the spirit of a roleplaying game.
And as @Avenger_teambg said, Skyrim is not an RPG. It's an open-world, action, dungeon-crawler with some RPG mechanics here and there. It has less RPG mechanics than Oblivion, which had less than Morrowind, which had less than Daggerfall. Each TES game is more action-focused and less RPG-focused.
No, spells and leveling up does no an RPG make. Because then, Saints Row IV is an RPG because it has customization, leveling up and "spells"/abilities. The Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Witcher games are RPGs. Gameplay and roleplay wise.
What I would want for future DnD/BG3 games? Isometric camera, 2D backgrounds but 3D models. Like Pillars of Eternity or Temple of Elemental Evil. Why 3D models? Because they are easier to make, easier to edit and easier to mod. Imagine modders adding new appearances for races, hair, heads, armor, weapons, monsters etc like NwN1 without going through the insane trouble of editing each 2D frame.
@Archaos Iirc the old definiotn of RPGs was based on stats and leveling, story is not neccessary for an RPG =P
But anyways, action-rpg does neither mean bad story, nor does it mean no-choices, it simply means that it has emphasis on action. Baldurs Gate is not a "real RPG" since games like Diablo, Exile or Nethack or others are also real RPGs. Baldurs Gate is a ..tactical RPG (if you emphasis the similarities to Icewind Dale), or a story-driven RPG. And while I personally prefer story-driven ones, it does not mean that I can just call it "real RPG".
I'm a guy that is just intrested in the story and I have learned that the further back you go into gaming history the less intresting RPGs get, because there stories where as relevant to the game as the story of Diablo or of ..Serious Sam, nothing but fluff *very* far in the background.
..To end my rambling, the word "real" is misplaced imho and does not serve to clarify a genre. ^^
@Arcanis Actually, the (old) definition of an RPG, is Role-Playing Game. Not stat-based or level-based. Roleplaying.
This was established mainly (if not originally) by DnD 1E and 2E back in the 70s and 80s. Even back then, the point of those games was to Role-Play. Not to level up and grind. It's just that stats, classes, leveling etc were choices that helped you with that Role-Play.
And role-playing means picking a role and playing it, making choices that let's you play that role instead of the only difference being that you use different abilities (classes). As well, like the original PnP RPG games, a player had a freedom of choice to change the path, dialogue and the story.
Stats don't make an RPG. Role-Playing, makes a game an RPG. And since games like Diablo don't enable you to Role-Play, since you are on a pre-determined path, with no dialogue choices that change anything and you're just there to kill stuff, it's not a "real" RPG, since there's no roleplaying involved. You just kill things in a different way.
That's the equivalent of saying that GTA or an FPS are RPGs, since you can kill stuff with a different weapon and wearing different armor that you customized. There are no choices involved that influence the story or the path you take.
While you can Role-Play in any kind of game, that doesn't make it a role-playing game. To be defined as an RPG, it needs to have role-playing choices by design. Just like for an FPS, it needs to have First Person Shooting by design to be defined as an FPS.
Like I said, Saints Row IV let's you customize your character, race, voice, appearance as well as level up and upgrade abilities and get new items. Like Diablo. That doesn't make it an RPG.
Diablo is a action dungeon-crawler with RPG-mechanics/stats. If you take the stats away, it's an action-adventure dungeon crawler/hack n slash. If you take the stats and leveling away from Planescape Torment or Baldur's Gate or Mass Effect, those are still RPGs since they enable you to Role-Play your character by design.
They are literally true RPGs, actually. Games that are designed for Role-Play. Stats are irrelevant and a secondary priority.
Many games are lazily, in my opinion, classified as RPGs based purely on the gameplay. Does the gameplay involve RPG mechanics? Then it's an RPG. Does the gameplay not involve RPG mechanics? Then it's not an RPG. The irony is that this classification doesn't care whether the game has any actual role-playing.
TL;DR: What we mean by "real"/true RPGs are the games that are designed around Role-Playing, not just stat/level-based. We simply don't have a better name for games that use RPG mechanics but have no Role-Playing. Maybe stat-based.
So the only way to separate the two is by calling the former as "true" RPGs and the latter as just RPGs.
I would argue that Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic did a good job translating isometric gameplay into a 3D RPG. It's not quite as immersive as say Skyrim and such and doesn't do the party management as well as most isometric games but it does a fairly good job all round.
Well... Role-playing means that you are playing a role, so yes you *could* make the argument that GTA is a role-playing game.
D&D1 had only had a story if your GM wanted it to have one, if you where mainly dungeon crawling than you where playing a bunch of greed driven dungeon crawlers.
My point was that I don't think true RPG says anything at all, since all you need to role-play is a protagonist that you controle. How well a company creates the illusion of choice doesn't really matter, what matters is that you have a character which you play. A first person shooter can give you choices and a good story, still, no one would call it an RPG.
So, no. Choices do *not* make something into a rpg, nor does a story. To get an RPG you have a consistent character which you develop, even if all the development you do is in a levelup screen and in an inventory screen.
My main problem is the ...judging character of the word "true" or "real". It says nothing about a game and a genre describtion should describe the kind of a game without sounding snobbish our elitist. Genre describton should be kept as neutral as possible no matter what you think about a game.
Well... Role-playing means that you are playing a role, so yes you *could* make the argument that GTA is a role-playing game.
I heavily disagree and I believe this is a fallacy. Just because you can Role-Play in a game, it doesn't make it a Role-Playing Game and this is an apparently common misconception. For a game to be considered a Role-Playing Game it has to be made/designed as a Role-Playing Game. Simply choosing to Role-Play in it doesn't it make it one.
It's like saying: "Well, Shooter means 'to shoot' therefore, any game that has any shooting of any sort is a shooter". That's a fallacy.
Just because you choose, as a player, to roleplay in Call of Duty as a soldier that doesn't automatically make Call of Duty a Role-Playing Game. Why? Because you choose to do that as a player, externally. The game is not designed neither supports Role-Playing by design, internally, therefore it's not a Role-Playing Game.
D&D1 had only had a story if your GM wanted it to have one, if you where mainly dungeon crawling than you where playing a bunch of greed driven dungeon crawlers.
DnD 1E was designed internally around Role-Playing. Therefore it's a Role-Playing Game. Just because a GM or the players chose not to Role-Play is irrelevant, just like if the player chooses to Role-Play in Call of Duty is irrelevant. The design and nature of a game doesn't change based on the decision of the player whether to RP or not.
My point was that I don't think true RPG says anything at all, since all you need to role-play is a protagonist that you controle.
By definition of the acronym "RPG", which means "Role-Playing Game" (a Game designed around Role-Playing) it automatically categorizes games in those that are RPGs and those that aren't. Simply controlling a character doesn't make it an RPG. Controlling something is "Gameplay" (how you Play a Game) not "Roleplaying".
A game where you cannot control anything and just watch, has little or no Gameplay. It's a movie or a visual-novel (which might have Role-Playing based on internally designed choices for such). A visual novel where you just hit "X" and just watch the story unfold with no choices or control, has no gameplay or role-playing. It's just that, a novel that you visualize.
So, no. Choices do *not* make something into a rpg, nor does a story. To get an RPG you have a consistent character which you develop, even if all the development you do is in a levelup screen and in an inventory screen.
What you are describing is RPG Gameplay/mechanics. That doesn't automatically make it a Role-Playing Game. Since you cannot Role-Play internally, if there are no choices to support that gameplay.
In LARPGs or LARPs (Live Action Role Playing Games), there could be really zero RPG mechanics involved. Zero stats, level ups and also zero story etc. That is still a real Role-Playing Game, since players can Role-Play their characters even if no stats are involved.
The same is true for games. Take the stats away from an RPG, and it's still a Role-Playing Game if the game is designed with the freedom and choice to Role-Play. If someone plays a pre-determined role with zero choice or deviation from the script, that is the definition of Acting. Not Role-Playing. This is why choices are a definitive and important part of Role-Playing Games. In PnP, video games or LARPing.
My main problem is the ...judging character of the word "true" or "real". It says nothing about a game and a genre describtion should describe the kind of a game without sounding snobbish our elitist. Genre describton should be kept as neutral as possible no matter what you think about a game.
It's not Elitist or Snobbish. It's being literal about the definition and categorization of something. If you call something an RPG but it's a Game with zero Role-Playing, you're literally calling it the wrong thing. What "true" and "real" says is that this RPG has both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing choices. RPG mechanics and Role-Playing are the Body and Spirit of RPGs, respectively.
Like I said, there are no better names to separate the games with RPG mechanics but zero Role-Playing from those that have both or at the very least, actual Role-Playing. So the best we can to do to separate them is call the latter "true" RPGs.
TL;DR: If a game has both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing choices, it's only logical to call it a "true" RPG. In LARP, if you had no choice and were forced to read from a script and do as told, no one would call that Role-Playing. They would call it Acting. Choice is paramount.
My main problem is the ...judging character of the word "true" or "real". It says nothing about a game and a genre describtion should describe the kind of a game without sounding snobbish our elitist. Genre describton should be kept as neutral as possible no matter what you think about a game.
I agree with this statement. The terms "true" or "real" do carry a connotation that any other type of RPG (i.e. action RPG, games with RPG elements) are automatically less-fun/worse/not-worth-playing, when that is just not true. Just because I don't like to play FPS games does not mean they should be called "those-crap-FPS" games, or all other games should be called "true games," that does not help explain what that game is. Game descriptions should be neutral. To me just saying "RPG" and "action RPG" is good enough. There is a difference in terms, and neither one makes the other seem like "less."
@Archaos I am curious what you would call games like the Final Fantasy series? Is it still an RPG even though it has a fixed story with no choices? Is it an action RPG even though it has (usually) slow turn based combat?
Skyrim is certainly an RPG. The choices you make have an effect on quests and events, the game is very dialogue-heavy, and the emphasis is clearly placed on what kind of character you create.
I think, like "isometric", people are confusing "genre" with "gameplay style". An RPG can be an Action game or a Shooter game and still be a "true" RPG. The gameplay style (tactical, first-person shooter, third-person action, point-and-click) doesn't prevent the game from falling into the RPG genre.
The line that separates RPG from non-RPG has been blurring steadily for more than a decade. Today, basically any game you play that has some form of leveling or progression or character class can be said to have some elements of RPG in it. Call of Duty, even, has a greater focus on story than a lot of people give it credit for.
At the end of the day, an RPG is any game where you play a character and make decisions on behalf of that character that go beyond movement and combat strategy. How many games can you say do not fit that criteria?
@Archaos I am curious what you would call games like the Final Fantasy series? Is it still an RPG even though it has a fixed story with no choices? Is it an action RPG even though it has (usually) slow turn based combat?
A JRPG. And I think that's its own genre of RPGs that instead of focusing on the Role-Playing part of RPG, it focuses on the story part. Also I'm a huge fan of the Final Fantasy games. But you really have zero choices and it's like watching a movie with the story and dialogue.
They're almost fantasy adventure games really with RPG mechanics. RPG gameplay and the "sit back and enjoy the characters and story" of adventure or visual novel games.
In the end, it's what I said. Calling it a "real" or "true" doesn't make a game better. It means that this game has both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing.
Role-Playing is two-thirds of the RPG. Literally.
It's like GTA. You wouldn't really call it a Driving game even though it has tons of driving in it. Its an open-world Action game with Driving mechanics. You would call a "real" Driving game, something like Need for Speed or Gran Turismo for example. Something that focuses exclusively on the Driving part.
Its the same for RPGs. At least personally. Does it have both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing? Then its a real RPG because it hits both checkboxes of what is defined as an RPG.
If one lacks one or the other element, then its not a true RPG. For example, Telltale's The Walking Dead games are Adventure/RPGs. You have the Adventure gameplay and Role-Playing with options.
Diablo is an Action/RPG. It has the Action gameplay with RPG mechanics but no Role-Playing.
Planescape: Torment is a true RPG. It has both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing. You cannot call it something else or something diluted. Its an RPG to the core by design.
If there is ANY twitch element in an RPG, then it is an action/RPG hybrid. Let me give an example: in RPG's your character's success of hitting an opponent should be determined by your character's abilities/skills/etc. If you shoot an arrow, it hits or misses based on a to-hit roll plus the modifiers coming from its character sheet and the opponent's armor class and other defenses (also on their character sheet). There is absolutely no factor for the player's ability to hit a pixel on the screen. In Witcher, your character's success doesn't solely depend on the character's skills or stats. Hence, it isn't a pure RPG, but an action/RPG hybrid.
@Dee Skyrim might be an RPG, but not a pure RPG. Actually, it has less RPG in it than Witcher, as others already mentioned why.
If that's the case, though, then XCOM is more of a "pure" RPG than Baldur's Gate (because XCOM's attacks are entirely stat-driven, and because none of the gameplay is based on the player's physical dexterity or agility, whereas in Baldur's Gate your ability to dodge a fireball is dependent upon the player's ability to move their character out of the way before it explodes), and I don't know that anyone would try to assert that that is the case.
The "RPG" classification, as I said, is an umbrella term that has been growing to cover games from a lot of other genres--and even games that historically were classified as simply "RPG", by today's standards, are not just RPGs.
In the end, it's what I said. Calling it a "real" or "true" doesn't make a game better. It means that this game has both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing.
I guess the main reason I don't like using "real" or "true" RPG is that it implies all other games with RPG elements are "fake" or "false." I think terms like "literal" and to a lesser extent "pure" would be better.
@Archaos for what it's worth I have no problem with you definition of RPG, just what you are choosing to name it.
I'm not sure that JRPGs can be considered a genre itself, for one, that term is a bit offensive itself. They are RPGs on their own merits and not all of them follow the same rules. RPGs in Japan were mostly influenced by Rogue, Wizardry and Ultima, and they later added more manga/anime elements, and thus why some follow a story in a more fixed path. However there are more roguelike RPGs and more Wizardry like RPGs in japan than most people think. Final Fantasy itself was Square's take on Dungeons and Dragons. They even had Beholders until they were changed to Evil Eyes. They changed certain things so it was closer to what Dragon Quest was doing at the time.
Regarding RPGs, on PnP, an RPG is mostly defined by the Role Playing. Even a Dungeon Crawl has Role Playing involved, thus PnP RPGs use their rules to provide the tools to do this Role Playing, but the rules themselves are just the tools for that, and good Dungeon Masters know when to ignore them for the sake of Role Playing.
Computer RPGs are not the same since, by themselves, all games give you a role to play with certain rules which make the game itself. Their definition is a bit more complex, specially since most of what are considered "RPG elements" have been incorporated to almost all genres of games since the 80s and today alsmot all games have some "RPG elements" incorporated on them regardless of their genre.
In my opinion, computer RPGs, should give you a role to play (which actually almost all videogames do), somekind of stats that influence your combat/non-combat abilities. Including a way to get better somehow (levels, skills...).
Combat should be based on those abilities and not on player abilities, whth the exception of Action RPGs, which either use bot player and character abilities, or just player abilities.
They should also have some randomness, like encounters, drops or combat rolls.
They should have somekind of inventory management and economy. Items themselves on an RPG should be used in different ways, but one basic one should be equipment. Usually games that most of their items are used for puzzle solving are adventure games.
There should also give a certain level of freedom, but there are also lineal RPGs.
And finally there should be quests, at least one main quest, and in most cases nowdays also several optional quests (though this was not common on the 80s)
RPGs are independent of their perspective, first person RPGs are as valid as isometric, or any other kind of perspective used. Ultima Underworld, Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines, Dungeon Master, Wizardry, Might and Magic... are great RPGs themselves.
@cmk "True", "real" and "pure" are all synonyms that pretty much describe the same thing. In a way, the games that only have a few RPG elements are in a way "fake".
Basically, they are RPGs but they don't have Role-Playing, so in that way they are not "real" RPGs, since they lack the Role-Playing part. It's the "they are but not really" part that makes people use "real" and "true".
Its like an object that is covered in gold vs one that is made of gold. It is gold (look, covered in it) but its not pure/real gold.
Same with games that look like RPGs but they are not really RPGs to the core. Just like something might be covered in gold but not be fully, truly, purely gold.
Or something that is covered in chocolate but its not really chocolate. Its just covered in it.
Springles of RPG elements, doesn't make that game an RPG. Especially when the core of it, which are RP choices are missing.
Really, I cannot explain it any better. I believe I have run out of examples.
Gee a lot of ink spilt on defining terms. A lot of this is silly, its like we're a bunch of nerds or something (!). Virtually every game is a unique entity and could conceivably be put in a category all its own.
But the origin of the modern RPG does go back to miniatures games. As "Chainmail" developed into D&D in the 1970s the RPG term was coined to indicate players were running a single character, or even a few individual characters as distinct from more traditional miniatures games where players were responsible for whole units or or unit groupings throughout a game. Speaking as someone who was gaming in the 70s I remember well how different it was. Even if our earliest adventure truly were just dungeon crawls; simply by running the same character over a course of game sessions led us to develop histories for our various alternate personalities. My group was in no way a part of TSR or had any influence whatsoever on the mega trends; but I think we went through the metamorphosis that gamers all over the world were going through. We started paying more attention to what our characters were "like" apart from just the numbers on the page, and story became a bigger part of our adventures. For many months we went into the dungeon to kill monsters and gather loot because that was the game. But soon we wanted to know why the dungeon was there, and why we would continue to risk our lives to enter it. We wanted reasons and missions. And pretty soon the world was bigger than just a dungeon. There were business and a city, a government and a world to explore. Even within my group of friends we wound up with several of us running games; each with its own slightly different focus and emphasis (what do you mean there's no dungeon in this city?). Our expectations were different when Tom was running a game as opposed to Jim's game or Gordon's game. Some focused more on story, some on combat, some on intrigue or politics.
Wow it was all so much fun. As the hobby has expanded and CRPGs entered the picture we saw even more variety, more different ways of doing things. I admit my own bias is still to see PnP as "real" gaming, while the CRPG is sort of a convenient substitute for when I can't get the gang together (which is most of the time anymore!). One of the great strengths of all the various CRPGs is it let's us experience all the different sorts of variations on a theme. Many of us will find favorite sorts, presumably everyone here has decided IE games are one of their favorite sorts of games. I guess all the various labels can be helpful to help describe what flavor of game a new offering is. But I'm open to saying many will not be easily labeled. One may be linear, another may be wide open. One may be determined wholly by the characters skills and talent; another leans more on the player's skill and talent!
The variety of what all is out there now is just amazing to me. Especially when I still remember that first introduction of walking down a dungeon corridor with a 1st level cleric, having no idea what any of us doing or why we were here. (well, I guess I was THERE because my friends wanted to play something other than a straight up war game. Funny, I think I'm the only one of that group still playing D&D).
I don't think "RPG" exists as a genre in the same way that "Platformer", "Action", "Shooter", "Strategy", and "Puzzle" do.
On one side, you have a category of games that are marked by their devotion to story, character-building mechanics, and quests. In this category, we have Baldur's Gate, Fallout 3, Final Fantasy, Destiny, Assassin's Creed.
On the other, you have categories that describe gameplay types. Skyrim is an Action game; Fallout 3 is a Shooter; Baldur's Gate is a Strategy game; Final Fantasy is alternately a Puzzle, Action, Strategy, or Platformer game, sometimes more than one within the same game.
All of these games are still RPGs. They don't stop being RPGs just because they involve a particular type of gameplay. No one gameplay type is more "pure", or "better", or more well-suited to the RPG category.
I see a lot of "absolute" definitions of what makes an RPG being tossed around, but what strikes me is that each of these definitions applies just as readily to games that would not classically be considered RPGs.
The irony is that BG/BG2/BGEE are commonly held up as the best example of RPGs among all computer games... when I think they are not really great RPGs. They are certainly the best, most faithful, and most fun translation of the AD&D rules to a computer game, and AD&D was the best-known and most popular non-computer RPG. But BG is actually more of a tactical small-squad RTS game than an RPG.
While the BG games don't give you as many options as Fallout or Planescape: Torment, I still think they are great Role-Playing Games, because the dialogue options support characters playing different roles.
Like giving you options to talk some NPCs out of fights, bribe them, attack them or even shift alignments of your companions through dialogue (Anomen, Sarevok, Viconia are examples).
Its not as binary as some games like the TES games where its either help them with the quest or kill them randomly and get their stuff.
If a game gives you the dialogue options to respond different, based on the personality of your character, even if they don't make a ton of difference, that's an important part of Role-Playing. Choice doesn't always have to lead to a totally different outcome but just having that choice is an important part of Role-Playing.
Like I said above a couple of times, people needed to separate the RPGs that involve Role-Playing versus those that don't. The same way people separate games that are Action and Puzzle. The simplest solution to this "problem" was simply calling the RPGs that had Role-Playing as "real/true/pure RPGs" and the others just RPGs. It was a practical quick and dirty solution, for good or worse.
@Dee I think it depends on what we mean when we categorize games. Games are categorized as what they are, based purely on their gameplay. Does it have RPG gameplay? Then we call it an RPG and in this way, calling games like Diablo or MMOs as RPGs, is correct.
But if we categorize RPGs based on what the name actually means, game with role-playing, then there's a paradox: A game with RPG gameplay, is called an RPG, even when it doesn't have Role-Playing. But if it doesn't have Role-Playing, call we really call it an RPG? Shouldn't it be called what it is? Stat/level-based. A game without Role-Playing but one that is based on stats, like RPGs.
In the end, we simply call games with no Role-Playing as RPGs just for simplicity reasons and that's all. But when the time comes to make a distinction between the two, people call it simply: "a true RPG".
Well, there are many intresting points in this thread and i think it comes down to personal opinion on a huge level.. But I do wonder.. is a Visual Novel an RPG? If someone puts the emphasis on story and choice many VNs actually fit, because if you put aside Kinetic Novels this kind of games boils down to a story in which you play the protagonist and make crucial choices every then and when.. So, can a VN -which is usually has no gameplay aside from reading, seeing pictures and making choices which can change the story- be a RPG? Or does it lack fundamental mechanics?
Really curious, since most ppl argue with Role-playing, i have to wonder how much *mechanics* you need.
Comments
So in the last year I have played (finished) BG EE, BG2 EE, IWD EE and (not finished) PoE.
A month ago I started playing NWN and NWN 2.
My gosh are THEY slow paced! The battles look like some sort of a funny dance between two people. The tactical element of moving around and placing yourself/companions in good spots is almost completely out, or better said, way too difficult to implement/se. While I try to move my dudes around (NWN 2) fighting with the wanky camera, the battle is over.
I have the feeling that for time time it takes to do one NWN2 battle, I could have done 3 battles in BG with the same group and same opponents...
NWN seems to be a rinse and repeat of "summon a critter, move a little bit so the critter can soak up damage, then click and kill".
Don't get me wrong, I like the graphics of NWN2, I know NWN has a gazilion of mods and some great people working on it but I just cringe every time there is a battle.
I prefer BG style of fast paced and tactically challenging (especially with SCS) combat all day long. And I think this is only possible because you can see your guys from that isometric perspective.
So I was quite happy to see that PoE could deliver really good looking graphics while still providing the isometric perspective. Really, I think that good, party-based RPG just have to be isometric, the same way that all good RTS have to be isometric, if they want to make the best experience out of combat.
I'm old (in gamer terms). I grew up with Pong, Asteroids and Spacewar. I've played hundreds of RPG's over those years, and just about all of my favorite games are RPGs of some form. I love the IE games, I love the 2D Fallout games.
But I also love Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, 3D Fallouts, DAI and a heap of MMORPGs. I say, if you count yourself as a member of the "RPG crowd", you have to have played many of the great 3D RPG's that have been released, ergo, you have reasonable computer hardware (or have had, at some point).
I also disagree that 2D ages better than 3D, particularly if that 2D is bitmap based and not vector based. All my old 2D games (without resolution patches) are a blurry mess on modern large resolution flat screen monitors. Taking something that is < 32 pixels high and drawing it at 500+ pixels is just never going to look good. Early 3D has it's own issues, I agree.. but most modern 3D scales really well to hardware upgrades. Will it transition nicely into holographic direct to brain rendering of the future? Who can say..
Tactical party-based gameplay = isometric view is necessary.
Single-hero action-based gameplay = 3D camera/ 3rd person camera is best.
And no, it's not hard to control 6 characters in 3rd-person view, it's painful, aggravating and unintuitive.
People REALLY need to stop asking for Skyrim clones from every single new RPG. I wish I could Like and Agree this paragraph more than once. Emphasis mine.
Though I disagree with the Witcher games. Those are true RPGs, while not party or turn-based, they have true roleplaying with choices that leads to consequences, which is the spirit of a roleplaying game.
And as @Avenger_teambg said, Skyrim is not an RPG. It's an open-world, action, dungeon-crawler with some RPG mechanics here and there.
It has less RPG mechanics than Oblivion, which had less than Morrowind, which had less than Daggerfall.
Each TES game is more action-focused and less RPG-focused.
No, spells and leveling up does no an RPG make. Because then, Saints Row IV is an RPG because it has customization, leveling up and "spells"/abilities.
The Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Witcher games are RPGs. Gameplay and roleplay wise.
What I would want for future DnD/BG3 games?
Isometric camera, 2D backgrounds but 3D models. Like Pillars of Eternity or Temple of Elemental Evil.
Why 3D models? Because they are easier to make, easier to edit and easier to mod.
Imagine modders adding new appearances for races, hair, heads, armor, weapons, monsters etc like NwN1 without going through the insane trouble of editing each 2D frame.
TL;DR: -No.
Iirc the old definiotn of RPGs was based on stats and leveling, story is not neccessary for an RPG =P
But anyways, action-rpg does neither mean bad story, nor does it mean no-choices, it simply means
that it has emphasis on action.
Baldurs Gate is not a "real RPG" since games like Diablo, Exile or Nethack or others are also real RPGs.
Baldurs Gate is a ..tactical RPG (if you emphasis the similarities to Icewind Dale), or a story-driven RPG.
And while I personally prefer story-driven ones, it does not mean that I can just call it "real RPG".
I'm a guy that is just intrested in the story and I have learned that the further back you go into
gaming history the less intresting RPGs get, because there stories where as relevant to the game as
the story of Diablo or of ..Serious Sam, nothing but fluff *very* far in the background.
..To end my rambling, the word "real" is misplaced imho and does not serve to clarify a genre. ^^
This was established mainly (if not originally) by DnD 1E and 2E back in the 70s and 80s.
Even back then, the point of those games was to Role-Play. Not to level up and grind.
It's just that stats, classes, leveling etc were choices that helped you with that Role-Play.
And role-playing means picking a role and playing it, making choices that let's you play that role instead of the only difference being that you use different abilities (classes).
As well, like the original PnP RPG games, a player had a freedom of choice to change the path, dialogue and the story.
Stats don't make an RPG. Role-Playing, makes a game an RPG.
And since games like Diablo don't enable you to Role-Play, since you are on a pre-determined path, with no dialogue choices that change anything and you're just there to kill stuff, it's not a "real" RPG, since there's no roleplaying involved. You just kill things in a different way.
That's the equivalent of saying that GTA or an FPS are RPGs, since you can kill stuff with a different weapon and wearing different armor that you customized.
There are no choices involved that influence the story or the path you take.
While you can Role-Play in any kind of game, that doesn't make it a role-playing game.
To be defined as an RPG, it needs to have role-playing choices by design.
Just like for an FPS, it needs to have First Person Shooting by design to be defined as an FPS.
Like I said, Saints Row IV let's you customize your character, race, voice, appearance as well as level up and upgrade abilities and get new items. Like Diablo. That doesn't make it an RPG.
Diablo is a action dungeon-crawler with RPG-mechanics/stats. If you take the stats away, it's an action-adventure dungeon crawler/hack n slash.
If you take the stats and leveling away from Planescape Torment or Baldur's Gate or Mass Effect, those are still RPGs since they enable you to Role-Play your character by design.
They are literally true RPGs, actually. Games that are designed for Role-Play. Stats are irrelevant and a secondary priority.
Many games are lazily, in my opinion, classified as RPGs based purely on the gameplay.
Does the gameplay involve RPG mechanics? Then it's an RPG.
Does the gameplay not involve RPG mechanics? Then it's not an RPG.
The irony is that this classification doesn't care whether the game has any actual role-playing.
TL;DR: What we mean by "real"/true RPGs are the games that are designed around Role-Playing, not just stat/level-based.
We simply don't have a better name for games that use RPG mechanics but have no Role-Playing. Maybe stat-based.
So the only way to separate the two is by calling the former as "true" RPGs and the latter as just RPGs.
And it's a cracking good game so that helps.
make the argument that GTA is a role-playing game.
D&D1 had only had a story if your GM wanted it to have one, if you where mainly dungeon crawling
than you where playing a bunch of greed driven dungeon crawlers.
My point was that I don't think true RPG says anything at all, since all you need to role-play is
a protagonist that you controle.
How well a company creates the illusion of choice doesn't really matter, what matters is that you
have a character which you play.
A first person shooter can give you choices and a good story, still, no one would call it an RPG.
So, no. Choices do *not* make something into a rpg, nor does a story. To get an RPG you have a consistent
character which you develop, even if all the development you do is in a levelup screen and in an inventory
screen.
My main problem is the ...judging character of the word "true" or "real". It says nothing about a game
and a genre describtion should describe the kind of a game without sounding snobbish our elitist.
Genre describton should be kept as neutral as possible no matter what you think about a game.
For a game to be considered a Role-Playing Game it has to be made/designed as a Role-Playing Game.
Simply choosing to Role-Play in it doesn't it make it one.
It's like saying: "Well, Shooter means 'to shoot' therefore, any game that has any shooting of any sort is a shooter". That's a fallacy.
Just because you choose, as a player, to roleplay in Call of Duty as a soldier that doesn't automatically make Call of Duty a Role-Playing Game.
Why? Because you choose to do that as a player, externally. The game is not designed neither supports Role-Playing by design, internally, therefore it's not a Role-Playing Game. DnD 1E was designed internally around Role-Playing. Therefore it's a Role-Playing Game.
Just because a GM or the players chose not to Role-Play is irrelevant, just like if the player chooses to Role-Play in Call of Duty is irrelevant.
The design and nature of a game doesn't change based on the decision of the player whether to RP or not. By definition of the acronym "RPG", which means "Role-Playing Game" (a Game designed around Role-Playing) it automatically categorizes games in those that are RPGs and those that aren't.
Simply controlling a character doesn't make it an RPG. Controlling something is "Gameplay" (how you Play a Game) not "Roleplaying".
A game where you cannot control anything and just watch, has little or no Gameplay. It's a movie or a visual-novel (which might have Role-Playing based on internally designed choices for such).
A visual novel where you just hit "X" and just watch the story unfold with no choices or control, has no gameplay or role-playing. It's just that, a novel that you visualize. What you are describing is RPG Gameplay/mechanics.
That doesn't automatically make it a Role-Playing Game. Since you cannot Role-Play internally, if there are no choices to support that gameplay.
In LARPGs or LARPs (Live Action Role Playing Games), there could be really zero RPG mechanics involved. Zero stats, level ups and also zero story etc.
That is still a real Role-Playing Game, since players can Role-Play their characters even if no stats are involved.
The same is true for games. Take the stats away from an RPG, and it's still a Role-Playing Game if the game is designed with the freedom and choice to Role-Play.
If someone plays a pre-determined role with zero choice or deviation from the script, that is the definition of Acting. Not Role-Playing.
This is why choices are a definitive and important part of Role-Playing Games. In PnP, video games or LARPing. It's not Elitist or Snobbish. It's being literal about the definition and categorization of something.
If you call something an RPG but it's a Game with zero Role-Playing, you're literally calling it the wrong thing.
What "true" and "real" says is that this RPG has both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing choices.
RPG mechanics and Role-Playing are the Body and Spirit of RPGs, respectively.
Like I said, there are no better names to separate the games with RPG mechanics but zero Role-Playing from those that have both or at the very least, actual Role-Playing.
So the best we can to do to separate them is call the latter "true" RPGs.
TL;DR:
If a game has both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing choices, it's only logical to call it a "true" RPG.
In LARP, if you had no choice and were forced to read from a script and do as told, no one would call that Role-Playing. They would call it Acting.
Choice is paramount.
@Archaos I am curious what you would call games like the Final Fantasy series? Is it still an RPG even though it has a fixed story with no choices? Is it an action RPG even though it has (usually) slow turn based combat?
I think, like "isometric", people are confusing "genre" with "gameplay style". An RPG can be an Action game or a Shooter game and still be a "true" RPG. The gameplay style (tactical, first-person shooter, third-person action, point-and-click) doesn't prevent the game from falling into the RPG genre.
The line that separates RPG from non-RPG has been blurring steadily for more than a decade. Today, basically any game you play that has some form of leveling or progression or character class can be said to have some elements of RPG in it. Call of Duty, even, has a greater focus on story than a lot of people give it credit for.
At the end of the day, an RPG is any game where you play a character and make decisions on behalf of that character that go beyond movement and combat strategy. How many games can you say do not fit that criteria?
And I think that's its own genre of RPGs that instead of focusing on the Role-Playing part of RPG, it focuses on the story part.
Also I'm a huge fan of the Final Fantasy games. But you really have zero choices and it's like watching a movie with the story and dialogue.
They're almost fantasy adventure games really with RPG mechanics.
RPG gameplay and the "sit back and enjoy the characters and story" of adventure or visual novel games.
In the end, it's what I said. Calling it a "real" or "true" doesn't make a game better.
It means that this game has both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing.
Role-Playing is two-thirds of the RPG. Literally.
It's like GTA. You wouldn't really call it a Driving game even though it has tons of driving in it.
Its an open-world Action game with Driving mechanics.
You would call a "real" Driving game, something like Need for Speed or Gran Turismo for example.
Something that focuses exclusively on the Driving part.
Its the same for RPGs. At least personally.
Does it have both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing? Then its a real RPG because it hits both checkboxes of what is defined as an RPG.
If one lacks one or the other element, then its not a true RPG.
For example, Telltale's The Walking Dead games are Adventure/RPGs. You have the Adventure gameplay and Role-Playing with options.
Diablo is an Action/RPG. It has the Action gameplay with RPG mechanics but no Role-Playing.
Planescape: Torment is a true RPG. It has both RPG mechanics and Role-Playing. You cannot call it something else or something diluted. Its an RPG to the core by design.
If there is ANY twitch element in an RPG, then it is an action/RPG hybrid. Let me give an example:
in RPG's your character's success of hitting an opponent should be determined by your character's abilities/skills/etc. If you shoot an arrow, it hits or misses based on a to-hit roll plus the modifiers coming from its character sheet and the opponent's armor class and other defenses (also on their character sheet). There is absolutely no factor for the player's ability to hit a pixel on the screen.
In Witcher, your character's success doesn't solely depend on the character's skills or stats. Hence, it isn't a pure RPG, but an action/RPG hybrid.
@Dee Skyrim might be an RPG, but not a pure RPG. Actually, it has less RPG in it than Witcher, as others already mentioned why.
The "RPG" classification, as I said, is an umbrella term that has been growing to cover games from a lot of other genres--and even games that historically were classified as simply "RPG", by today's standards, are not just RPGs.
@Archaos for what it's worth I have no problem with you definition of RPG, just what you are choosing to name it.
Regarding RPGs, on PnP, an RPG is mostly defined by the Role Playing. Even a Dungeon Crawl has Role Playing involved, thus PnP RPGs use their rules to provide the tools to do this Role Playing, but the rules themselves are just the tools for that, and good Dungeon Masters know when to ignore them for the sake of Role Playing.
Computer RPGs are not the same since, by themselves, all games give you a role to play with certain rules which make the game itself. Their definition is a bit more complex, specially since most of what are considered "RPG elements" have been incorporated to almost all genres of games since the 80s and today alsmot all games have some "RPG elements" incorporated on them regardless of their genre.
In my opinion, computer RPGs, should give you a role to play (which actually almost all videogames do), somekind of stats that influence your combat/non-combat abilities. Including a way to get better somehow (levels, skills...).
Combat should be based on those abilities and not on player abilities, whth the exception of Action RPGs, which either use bot player and character abilities, or just player abilities.
They should also have some randomness, like encounters, drops or combat rolls.
They should have somekind of inventory management and economy. Items themselves on an RPG should be used in different ways, but one basic one should be equipment. Usually games that most of their items are used for puzzle solving are adventure games.
There should also give a certain level of freedom, but there are also lineal RPGs.
And finally there should be quests, at least one main quest, and in most cases nowdays also several optional quests (though this was not common on the 80s)
RPGs are independent of their perspective, first person RPGs are as valid as isometric, or any other kind of perspective used. Ultima Underworld, Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines, Dungeon Master, Wizardry, Might and Magic... are great RPGs themselves.
In a way, the games that only have a few RPG elements are in a way "fake".
Basically, they are RPGs but they don't have Role-Playing, so in that way they are not "real" RPGs, since they lack the Role-Playing part.
It's the "they are but not really" part that makes people use "real" and "true".
Its like an object that is covered in gold vs one that is made of gold.
It is gold (look, covered in it) but its not pure/real gold.
Same with games that look like RPGs but they are not really RPGs to the core.
Just like something might be covered in gold but not be fully, truly, purely gold.
Or something that is covered in chocolate but its not really chocolate. Its just covered in it.
Springles of RPG elements, doesn't make that game an RPG. Especially when the core of it, which are RP choices are missing.
Really, I cannot explain it any better. I believe I have run out of examples.
But the origin of the modern RPG does go back to miniatures games. As "Chainmail" developed into D&D in the 1970s the RPG term was coined to indicate players were running a single character, or even a few individual characters as distinct from more traditional miniatures games where players were responsible for whole units or or unit groupings throughout a game.
Speaking as someone who was gaming in the 70s I remember well how different it was. Even if our earliest adventure truly were just dungeon crawls; simply by running the same character over a course of game sessions led us to develop histories for our various alternate personalities. My group was in no way a part of TSR or had any influence whatsoever on the mega trends; but I think we went through the metamorphosis that gamers all over the world were going through. We started paying more attention to what our characters were "like" apart from just the numbers on the page, and story became a bigger part of our adventures.
For many months we went into the dungeon to kill monsters and gather loot because that was the game. But soon we wanted to know why the dungeon was there, and why we would continue to risk our lives to enter it. We wanted reasons and missions.
And pretty soon the world was bigger than just a dungeon. There were business and a city, a government and a world to explore. Even within my group of friends we wound up with several of us running games; each with its own slightly different focus and emphasis (what do you mean there's no dungeon in this city?). Our expectations were different when Tom was running a game as opposed to Jim's game or Gordon's game. Some focused more on story, some on combat, some on intrigue or politics.
Wow it was all so much fun. As the hobby has expanded and CRPGs entered the picture we saw even more variety, more different ways of doing things. I admit my own bias is still to see PnP as "real" gaming, while the CRPG is sort of a convenient substitute for when I can't get the gang together (which is most of the time anymore!).
One of the great strengths of all the various CRPGs is it let's us experience all the different sorts of variations on a theme. Many of us will find favorite sorts, presumably everyone here has decided IE games are one of their favorite sorts of games. I guess all the various labels can be helpful to help describe what flavor of game a new offering is. But I'm open to saying many will not be easily labeled. One may be linear, another may be wide open. One may be determined wholly by the characters skills and talent; another leans more on the player's skill and talent!
The variety of what all is out there now is just amazing to me. Especially when I still remember that first introduction of walking down a dungeon corridor with a 1st level cleric, having no idea what any of us doing or why we were here. (well, I guess I was THERE because my friends wanted to play something other than a straight up war game. Funny, I think I'm the only one of that group still playing D&D).
On one side, you have a category of games that are marked by their devotion to story, character-building mechanics, and quests. In this category, we have Baldur's Gate, Fallout 3, Final Fantasy, Destiny, Assassin's Creed.
On the other, you have categories that describe gameplay types. Skyrim is an Action game; Fallout 3 is a Shooter; Baldur's Gate is a Strategy game; Final Fantasy is alternately a Puzzle, Action, Strategy, or Platformer game, sometimes more than one within the same game.
All of these games are still RPGs. They don't stop being RPGs just because they involve a particular type of gameplay. No one gameplay type is more "pure", or "better", or more well-suited to the RPG category.
I see a lot of "absolute" definitions of what makes an RPG being tossed around, but what strikes me is that each of these definitions applies just as readily to games that would not classically be considered RPGs.
Like giving you options to talk some NPCs out of fights, bribe them, attack them or even shift alignments of your companions through dialogue (Anomen, Sarevok, Viconia are examples).
Its not as binary as some games like the TES games where its either help them with the quest or kill them randomly and get their stuff.
If a game gives you the dialogue options to respond different, based on the personality of your character, even if they don't make a ton of difference, that's an important part of Role-Playing.
Choice doesn't always have to lead to a totally different outcome but just having that choice is an important part of Role-Playing.
Like I said above a couple of times, people needed to separate the RPGs that involve Role-Playing versus those that don't. The same way people separate games that are Action and Puzzle.
The simplest solution to this "problem" was simply calling the RPGs that had Role-Playing as "real/true/pure RPGs" and the others just RPGs.
It was a practical quick and dirty solution, for good or worse.
@Dee I think it depends on what we mean when we categorize games. Games are categorized as what they are, based purely on their gameplay.
Does it have RPG gameplay? Then we call it an RPG and in this way, calling games like Diablo or MMOs as RPGs, is correct.
But if we categorize RPGs based on what the name actually means, game with role-playing, then there's a paradox:
A game with RPG gameplay, is called an RPG, even when it doesn't have Role-Playing.
But if it doesn't have Role-Playing, call we really call it an RPG? Shouldn't it be called what it is? Stat/level-based.
A game without Role-Playing but one that is based on stats, like RPGs.
In the end, we simply call games with no Role-Playing as RPGs just for simplicity reasons and that's all.
But when the time comes to make a distinction between the two, people call it simply: "a true RPG".
opinion on a huge level..
But I do wonder.. is a Visual Novel an RPG?
If someone puts the emphasis on story and choice many VNs actually fit, because if you
put aside Kinetic Novels this kind of games boils down to a story in which you play the
protagonist and make crucial choices every then and when..
So, can a VN -which is usually has no gameplay aside from reading, seeing pictures and making
choices which can change the story- be a RPG?
Or does it lack fundamental mechanics?
Really curious, since most ppl argue with Role-playing, i have to wonder how much *mechanics* you need.