Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy and KOTOR are wildly different games, as one is an action rpg and KOTOR is a CRPG, but I think KOTOR is one of the greatest games of all time so I generally recommend it.
Now Playing (Video Games)
- Thread starter Onhell
- Start date
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Especially if you're longing for a good RPG.
Also, question for everyone. What do you guys consider an "RPG?" They've changed so much through the decades. RPGs used to be turned based adventures like the first Final Fantasy games and Pokemon, but The Elder Scrolls and Diablo popularized the ACTION RPG, which was real-time combat. After that it got muddy and turned-based RPGs disappeared from the American market to the point which they are now called JRPGs for their overwhelming prescence in Japan.
When I think RPG so many games come to mind that are NOT necessarily a classic RPG. Essentially any game in which you level up a skill tree is at its core an RPG. But Diablo, Darksiders, Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider (2013), and KOTOR, to name a few, have little else in common. I was gonna rattle off some names for you, @Saapnael, but then realized just because I consider it an RPG, or maybe it is one, doesn't mean it is YOUR kind of RPG.
It happened to me when I was getting into Metal. A friend was like, "Here, listen to this!" "What is it?" "Iron Maiden! It's Metal!" "Cool!" Same friend, "Here listen to this!" "What is it?" "Opeth! It's Metal!" Me, "WTF!" And that's how I learned that just because it is Metal it doesn't mean it is the SAME kind of Metal lol. I like Opeth now, obviously, but it took a while.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
The way I see it...
Class based or skill tree based or both, and you can't end the game with all skills maxed and all items present. So there must be a choice of character development. Diablo in some ways plays more similar to Zelda than to FF, but Zelda is action adventure because there's really no choice in character development. The other ingridient that leans on character development - character based combat. It can be turn based, real time, or anything in between, but there should be no armies involved. If the character is just a leader and the buff for an army, that's a strategy, not an RPG.
In reality, RPG began in 8 bit era 30 years ago. Evolution of stuff makes old categories obsolete, sometimes.
Class based or skill tree based or both, and you can't end the game with all skills maxed and all items present. So there must be a choice of character development. Diablo in some ways plays more similar to Zelda than to FF, but Zelda is action adventure because there's really no choice in character development. The other ingridient that leans on character development - character based combat. It can be turn based, real time, or anything in between, but there should be no armies involved. If the character is just a leader and the buff for an army, that's a strategy, not an RPG.
In reality, RPG began in 8 bit era 30 years ago. Evolution of stuff makes old categories obsolete, sometimes.
RPG = Roleplaying Game. It's a game in which you are inserted into the role of a character, and lead that character through the stories. Most people would agree on some sort of level-based or skill-based advancement system.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
I'm glad you added that second part, because with just the first sentence I thought, well, isn't that EVERY game? Your "role" is that of the player character.
RPG creators are not shy about how it all started with D&D. As for your point on evolution, I agree. Except for "retro" indie titles, most games now-a-days tend to blur genre lines. Like Fallout 3, it's an open world adventure/exploration game, you play a role, like LC said, and it has the skill tree in which you cannot max out every option, it's been called a FPS in short... It is an RPG that borrows heavily from other genres to the point MOST people don't think of it as one. Most of the bitching I've seen online on how Bethesda "ruined" Fallout was by making it a FPS, BUT, is it really? It's from a first person POV, but you can AVOID combat in most situations, unlike FPs which compat is the main point.
No, I'm playing some Hearts of Iron right now and it's difficult to say that I am "inhabiting" the role of Mackenzie King, for example. I am running the country as if I was the multifaceted government officials that are required for such a task.
Saapanael
Ancient Mariner
What exactly is a CRPG?
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
As someone who had played Fallout and Fallout 2 back in the day, the main issues I saw with Fallout 3 were that they got some of the lore dead wrong (e.g. The Brotherhood Of Steel), and that they grafted a weak FPS mechanic onto the game. If the shooting felt good it wouldn’t have bothered me, but it was sluggish and sloppy. Thankfully, you could all but eliminate the FPS element by focusing on VATS perks and just dealing with combat as a turn-based exercise. I actually thought it was brilliant how they incorporated this element from the original games so you could play it either way.
+ the story element is essential, which isn’t the case for all games. The distinction was probably more significant in the 80s when fewer video games were story based.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
I fired up Rogue Aces again last night, and what a wonderful throwback this is. The DNA of Sopwith, Time Pilot, and Wings Of Fury combined with Rogue-like elements is a potent mix. I still haven’t finished the procedurally generated 100-mission campaign yet, though I think I got into the mid-90s once when I was playing it more heavily.
The AAA spectacle games have all started seeming very samey to me over the past several years, so I’ve been gravitating more toward smaller games that either focus firmly on strong game mechanics with procedural generation to keep things fresh, or unique combinations of game mechanics to give me something new, or well done VR titles that give me a fundamentally different experience from the norm.
I still enjoy a high-quality AAA experience from time to time, but my ever-growing backlog suggests that I just can’t motivate myself to get back to Red Dead Redemption 2, or to even start God Of War (2016) or Horizon: Zero Dawn. I’m sure I would enjoy all of them, but these shiny smaller games keep grabbing my interest instead.
The AAA spectacle games have all started seeming very samey to me over the past several years, so I’ve been gravitating more toward smaller games that either focus firmly on strong game mechanics with procedural generation to keep things fresh, or unique combinations of game mechanics to give me something new, or well done VR titles that give me a fundamentally different experience from the norm.
I still enjoy a high-quality AAA experience from time to time, but my ever-growing backlog suggests that I just can’t motivate myself to get back to Red Dead Redemption 2, or to even start God Of War (2016) or Horizon: Zero Dawn. I’m sure I would enjoy all of them, but these shiny smaller games keep grabbing my interest instead.
I haven't bought a new AAA title in years. I think the last one I bought was GTA 5.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Just added a bunch of games to my wishlist and none are AAA. They are either indie, retro, or obscure.
I've been playing the ever living fuck out of Stardew lately.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
I'm arguing that if the path is set, it's not a "true" RPG. If the path of progression is set in stone, then all character development is enslaved to the game's plot and the way the developers set forward for you. There's no freedom to experiment with various items and skills if most of them are mandatory for the progression. Think Nintendo, and items/weapons used to remove an certain type of obstacle in the world, so you can push forward.
I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Branching story trees are nice, but they aren't necessary. If the story being captive then you rule out some of the greatest RPGs of all time.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Just to clarify, I ain't talking about branching stories, I'm talking about freedom to use different builds.
King's Bounty - single plot. You take a class, you build up your hero's skills the way you want by fighting around the map, and you push the story on by having enough strength in the right moment to kill some enemies. There's a freedom of using different skills, artifacts and armies (in combination) to fit your playstyle.
Do you consider Metroid a RPG? Or Zelda? I mean you certainly play a role and develop the character.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Going back to this kinda quick, This is how I felt with Diablo III. Fallout III is my first Fallout experience and it got me curious about the first two. People who played the first two and then 3 were upset about the ending, no matter want it ended one way and one way only. What happened to the open endedness directly related to my decisions? Why is it a FPS? (Again, I don't think it is one.) And as you put it, the lore. The explanations I got regarding the lore is that these peeps have nothing to do with the original Fallout peeps. Fallout I and II take place in the west coast, right? Current day California/Oregon or something like that. III takes place on the east coast. In fact Lyons says he disagrees with his west coast brethren. That satisfys me, a casual noob to the series, but most fans still have issues with it.
Diablo III was that to me. Fucked up the lore, the atmosphere, everything. I played Diablo back in 98 and patiently awaited and played the hell out of Diablo II. Then Diablo III is.... what? a sequel? A sequel/reboot? Why am I fighting and killing monsters I killed in Diablo I? Why is Adria alive and YOUNG? I played through it, finished it, expansion included and I have to say I don't know why. I hated every second of it. I was just pissed and annoyed at this... THING calling itself a Diablo game and being NOTHING like a Diablo game.
Looks like Blizzard learned its lesson and Diablo IV looks like a return to roots from the look of the trailer.
Saapanael
Ancient Mariner
I'm waiting for Diablo IV so bad but it's gonna be a few years before we get to play it.