Larian Studios Forums General Chat RPG Chat Need a new game...

You can have it in other games, too.

It's just a matter of how much imagination you are willing to put in it.



Action-RPGs, I call them a "sub-genre" of the ovverall RPGs.

Action-RPGs are reduced to the absolute core :

- no talk
- no socialization
- only combat
- only collecting items
- extremely reduced story (no matter whether there is more background lore outside of the games - it's just nver shown)

ction-RPGs made by Blizzard are so much reduced like ... Spaghetti is in terms of nutricions and vitamins.

Action-RPGs are "the fast food side of RPGS" - and what I personally find absolutely HORRIBLE is when people know no other way RPGs are and then DEMAND that all other RPGs should be like this !


At RPGWatch I've come across the term [of] "old school RPG". That's very much what fits the rest, the "non-action" part of the RPG genre.

This is why I love Drakensang : It contains a good story, it contains social interaction ( you can actually talk to persons !!! ) , no item-collecting, the game's beginning is much, much, much more difficult ( you really need to learn about everything ! ) , and the combat is not the overwhelming game feature.

I have played the first and the secong action-RPGs by Vlizzard, and the second one even with its expansion ... When I "woke up", it was like as if I hd been drug-addicted or something, and I soon began to detest these games simply because of the lack of variation ...

Action-RPGs repeat the same kind of theme again and again, again and again, agin and again ... Only the look differs. Nothing more. And the difficulty, maybe.

That's too much "flat-bed" for my taste. My brain screams for intellectual food !

That's why I don't play action-RPGs anymore.


And now, there's another direction the "gaming indistry" has taken : "RPG light", leading into Mass Effect ...

This is the curse of streamlining for mass market appeal ... It just becomes flatter and flatter ... more nd more shallow, no more intellectual food anymore ...


Plus, the "gaming industry" actually follows right ow the same patterns as the "music industry" : Sequels, sequels, sequels, sequels ... The same idea exploited again and again and again and again and again ...


No, not for me.

And that's why so many people look towards Europe : That's the only market left where not the rules of profits are being carried out in terms of making gams, but rather where game are still kind of demanding, unique stories etc. ...

I fully agree. The "matter of opinion" part was why I replied to "Diablo 2 is probably the best ARPG ever made.", though - you made it sound like that wasn't a matter of opinion.

To be honest, there IS some justification for calling Diablo 2 a role-playing game. It wasn't the first game that centered on fighting and leveling up while still being labeled a role-playing game. In the contrary, many of the early (and very successful) computer role-playing games are about exploring dungeons, fighting and leveling up - and little else. Think of the (original) Bard's Tale series, the Dungeon Master series or the Eye of the Beholder series ... so much for "old school" and sequels being a recent development, by the way.

And the tradition dates even further back. Many adventures for the D&D and AD&D pen & paper role-playing game centered on combat - you had to fight numerous monsters and gained far more XP through fighting than as a quest reward. Those adventures were called "hack and slash", but they were still thought of as being part of a role-playing game.

In this sense, Diablo 2 is a role-playing game. I do think that the standards for computer role-playing games have changed, however, and that the same term should not be used for Planescape: Torment (published in 1999) and Diablo 2 (published in 2000). As it follows the tradition of adventures purely centered on combat, it's fair enough to call Diablo 2 a "hack and slash" game, whether you want to see this as a sub-genre of role-playing games or not.

I think the "action" in "action role-playing game" originally pointed out that the game had real-time combat, not turn-based combat. Since there are so few new games with turn-based combat, "action" has come to mean "combat-heavy", and of course, "action role-playing game" does sound better than "hack and slash game", so publishers prefer to use that term.

I think this rather sums up why I tend to get irritated with the "that's not a real RPG" sort of discussions: I'm not saying it was your intent but it can very easily come across as rather elitist and condescending towards those of more "lowbrow" preferences, especially regarding elements like good graphical presentation (which I actually rather like). Preferences are just that: there's no correct way.

Turn-based combat is another one that comes up often, but is this any more "correct" than real-time combat? Personally I don't care for it, though I'd shy way from criticising it on that basis: it's just not my cup of tea, that's all.

Although I sympathise with the concern that games may tend toward a "lowest common denominator", I think I'd be cautious to avoid any suggestion that they are dumbing down to suit the mass-market as is often suggested. Even if it's true on some occasions, it doesn't really invite considered discourse, and not doing so is the enemy of promoting more widespread interest in the genre.

I'm reminded of the interminable squabbling amongst Elder Scrolls fans about why Oblivion is rubbish compared to Morrowind, which became so shrill that I almost avoided playing Morrowind altogether (I'd started with Oblivion, so I was going "backwards" through the franchise). Fortunately I gave it a look anyway and enjoyed it a lot, which revealed that most of the arguments were nonsense and I should've just dismissed them in the first place; where Oblivion does fall short (and this is still a subjective area) it was easily enough fixed with user-made mods to deal with levelling, trading and obliterating the conspicuous areas of computer-generated landscape. But had the elitists succeeded in putting me off with their haughty dismissal of Oblivion and its corollary which suggested Morrowind to be an ugly, difficult and uninviting game, I'd never have experienced the joy of playing it.

Flix,

I have to admit, I play ARPGs to nuke stuff and that's about all. I've never worried about back story.

***

Lurker,

P&P RPGs are about what the players do, and the GM can always give EXP for role playing, ideas, etc. Even the most blatant dungeon crawl can be an excuse for characterisation and character interaction. Modules frame the narrative, but they are not the story. The players create the story. That's the part that the games companies tend to miss.

I've GMed games that were intended to be mainly talking and had players ignore all that and just kill stuff, and the reverse.

***

Just to be clear, I played tabletop RPGs for just over 20 years before I burned out on them and gave up. I still do play RPGs on the computer/console - and I mean pretty much all types: Diablo-type ARPGs, Dragon Age type RPGs, Final Fantasy type JRPGs, weird hybrids like SpellForce and Divine Divinity - and I thoroughly enjoy them all. My desire for clarity in the genre in no way comes from looking down on any type. I just think the RPG designation has become absolutely meaningless and I'd like to see the industry clear that up.

I tend to use the terms as (Which, yes, are far from computer industry standard):

RPG: involves characterisation by the player. Includes such games as Dragon Age, The Witcher and PS:T. Story & plot will be important, but who your character is will make a significant difference to how the game plays out. Played by people who like to develop a character.

JRPG: interactive films, like the Final Fantasy games. The games are made to tell a story and everything else is incidental to the story, including anything the player might do. Played by people who like a good story (Or at least an entertaining one with fun characters).

ARPG: involves hitting stuff. A lot. Everything else in the game is just an excuse to let you hit more stuff. Possibly the best stress/frustration reliever ever invented!

Of the three types, only the first are 'true' RPGs.

All have their virtues and their place, but the possibility of misunderstanding is near-infinite with the current set-up in computer games. Especially with the nefarious 'RPG elements'. A more meaningleess term has never been invented...

probably a minority here, but being a star wars geek, one of my all time favorite RPGs was Knights of the Old Republic.

Yes, but you are on the side of the companies : No-one does turn-based combat anymore. Drakensang is an exception, and I don't cound "combat with automatic pause" as "turn-based". It just feels different.

In my case, it isn't that I'm feeling like an "eliticist". I just want ... I often try to compare it to museums. People just don't like museums. They must be supported here, by he state or the town, usually.

But what is popular are mass events like football. TV. In cenemas, the demanding movies are not those which generate the most profits.

Same with gaming, in my opinion. Demanding games like - the prime example cited by everyone ! - PS:T just doesn't as much buzz as BLizzard's action RPGs do. Even today ! these action RPGs are sold at the local markets here - together with WarCraft, its world of, and StarCraft. You won't find PS:T in ANY shop of today ! - It's just that no-one wants it.

And I always wonder why ? Why are some games which don't even have social interaction at all so insanely popular ? Why does no-one go into museums ? Are both (PS:T and art museums) too demanding ? Do people rather prefer some sort of "light enetertainment" ? Like Mass Effect ?

If I think this consequently to the end, then the path of the profit is leading to this : To the smallest ever possible risks in terms of financial losses, to the greatest mass appeal in terms of financial income, and to the best audience possible, to vbuild up a good brand name for future sales.

In terms of financial thinking, demanding games are high-risk, low-profits games and should therefore be avoided at all costs !
Or - a huge company spends an insanely huge sum on marketing - like Dragon Age - "this is the new shit !"

Games like Drakensang are the losers of this system. And onsequently, Radon Labs became bancrupt.

I have tried turn based games like final fantasy, personally, I can't stand them

its almost boring, and maddening frustrating at times.

Hmm, now you're making me think of computer systems, and perhaps there I can see your point. Windows is something that I hate, for example: it's technologically poor in almost every regard, but there it is, everywhere, ubiquitous. Better systems exist but are almost unheard of, save the occasional remark about Linux for better or worse. Is it the fault of the users? Well, no: at least no more than most have been indoctrinated to believe by Microsoft's slick adverts.

If I cast my mind back to being taught to use VMS (nice, but wordy), MVS (okay but clunky) or Unix (horrible but very powerful), would I want to inflict that on the average computer user? Probably not, but had they remained as contemporary as they were back in the day, they could have possibly offered a viable and usable alternative. It's hard to know if that was ever a possible reality or if I'm just a dreamer; but in a way it parallels the way RPGs have progressed.


I think we'll have to agree to disagree about Mass Effect since I actually rather like it, but as for why people don't go to museums... well I can't pull numbers out of a hat, but I wonder if there is a drop if it's for the same reason that people no longer go to public libraries as often as they used do--noting that our local library is sadly earmarked for closure. It's not that the custom isn't there, but that much of it has gone online. This is admittedly an assumption based on my own tendency to agoraphobia, but I prefer it as an explanation to alternatives like everybody becoming obsessed with football, soap operas or whatever.


This is sadly all to commonplace at least in generic terms, to the point where it's becoming increasingly difficult to find good quality products even as expensive niche items. I tried to buy my first mobile phone recently, for example, and it seems they're all rubbish. You can't even get a decent kettle any longer, not for any price.

But I still view this as a fault with the corporate world: everything's short term, nobody's interested in the slow-burners that could be a real investment.

Back to computer games, those that are a challenge are a tricky area to deal with: too much to remember early on makes them prohibitively difficult for newcomers (not just to the genre but the game itself) and can be off-putting; whereas lack of complexity can be boring in the longer-term. I mentioned Oblivion a while back: I came to it from the world of shooters, which had been fairly unsatisfactory to me: RPGs had passed me by, for whatever reason. And there I was, confronted with what some would regard as a "dumbed down" game, with quests galore, trading, enchanting, more types of weapon than I could shake a stick at, even more personal attributes than I knew what to do with, weird stuff like soul gems... it was all so overwhelming. Fast forward a few dozen hours of playing time, once I'd got over the learning curve, and I was wanting more: it was too basic! Fortunately FCOM banished much of that latter frustration, but really it was the learning curve that was the big problem. I know I have more issues with it than most people--I can go far, but the first steps make me falter more than most. But even more complex games? I still put them off in trepidation of what may be in store: I'm left thinking of The Witcher which really did seem to be a case of complexity for its own sake (and I've seen few people disagree with that) but it would be so easy to address it not in terms of streamlining but just making it simpler. And few people would want that.

I guess the point is that appealing to both newcomers and old hands alike is probably a sort of "holy grail" of RPGs. I don't even know if it's attainable... but the games studios shouldn't give up trying.

EK: yeah, it's very clear you and Alrik come from a background of playing P&P RPG, so it makes sense that games like Diablo or Titan Quest would little different from Mortal Kombat. But I didn't. I came from Mortal Kombat. Diablo II was amazingly rich compared to that. A linear story? My character develops? I can explore places and talk to people? Whaa?! I worked my way up to games with massive stories w/ complex characters and moral choices.

Definite opposite ends of the spectrum there, Flix, yes!

When I first discovered CRPGs, what I most had to get used to were the vast limitations imposed by the medium. Tabletop games are limited only by the players' imaginations and a good set of players can come up with stuff no computer could handle. Probably just as well, as we'd be in Skynet territory, but still

PS:T is the closest thing to a tabletop game I've yet seen on a computer. Which is probably why it's the best CRPG ever made.

I'll definitely agree with Alrik that we need more games like PS:T.

Very interesting topic-conversation here !

I only like the "turn-based" element if I play Cardgames, Risk, Rummicub, Trivial Persude, Cluedo, Monopoly, Chess, Checkers, 999 Games, etc ... So, no games with a computer or console, but the games you play with friends on a table in your living room or somewhere else ...

If Diabolo is pure "action-oriented" (hack 'n' slash) and so called ARPG, hmmm ... why is the DKS also ARPG?
Maybe the Diabolo games are more pure ARPG than the Divinity games are so I prefer to give the Divinity games the label "RPG" or "xRPG", where you can say that they've "x" kind of RPG genres inside them ...
Or with other words: a little bit "Weird" kind of RPG's?
For me the Divinity games have many elements of different kind of RPG's and I like that !!

I find it very difficult to give a RPG a stamp/label ! (like: aRPG, jRPG, etc ...)

I think I still have an unwillingness to do so, with the exception of JRPGs since to my mind they're a distinct thing of their own. But, subjectivity again...

I'm still not keen on the idea of turn-based combat: that's not to say there's anything wrong with it, though I don't really agree with the precept that "D&D did it that way, and so should videogame RPGs": D&D is also its own thing and not necessarily the template for RPGs, though if some producers and players want their RPGs to be that way, I'm not going to argue: I'll just argue if anyone says that a game and/or player is a lesser thing for not abiding by that rule.

Anyone here own Oblivion? I saw it at gamestop today and am wondering if is worth getting

Well, a pen & paper adventure module can provide a lot of room for ideas and character interaction or hardly any, and it can inspire role-playing or stifle it. Of course, pen & paper will always be much more open and more easily modifiable by the players (and the GM) than a CRPG, but the module as well as the computer game are the framework for the role-playing experience, and in my eyes, "hack and slash" adventure modules are directly linked to computer games like Diablo 2 and board games like MB's HeroQuest.

Just like you can turn a bland module into a rich experience by means of your imagination, you can expand Diablo 2 by means of your imagination. And just like you can hack and rush through a module that was intended to be based on talking, diplomacy and opportunities for role-playing, you can quickly click through all of the "boring dialogue" in Planescape: Torment in order to get back to the fighting and looting, if you are so inclined [*shudder*].

In both pen & paper and computer role-playing games, the player's attitude has a large influence on the overall experience, and the author/developer just provides the framework for it. This framework encourages a certain style of play, but you're not necessarily limited to it.

Absolutely, Lurker. And I echo your shudder!

Without meaning to offend anyone, though (As noted, I play ARPGs a lot myself), ARPGs are based on the kind of thing neophyte tabletop gamers do before they've actually worked out properly what the game entails.

***

Vometia,

If there was any possible way to run a P&P campaign without turn based combat, you can be sure gamers would have adopted it. Sadly, however, it is not possible - and is one of the advantages CRPGs have over their tabletop cousins. No-one could ever convince me that the wonderful combat system in The Witcher (For example) could ever be equalled by anything that is turn based.

One thing I have to say, though: D&D pretty much IS the template for RPGs, being the original (Well, unless you count Chainmail, but who outside of Gygax's group ever even saw that?). Granted a number of them stray pretty far from that template, but without D&D none of these other games would ever have existed.

That's not to take away from any of the other games in any way, please note. Some of them are terrific games in their own right. But Gary Gygax created the concept of the RPG, and without that...

No one has Oblivion? Was looking for another opinion from RPGers.

This is my opinion, but I think it echoes that of many, many other players. I think Oblivion has the potential to be a great game, but it requires the time and learning of applying a lot of mods. Vanilla Oblivion (straight out of the box) has some horrible gameplay elements IMO. The way you level is based on what you do, not experience or stat points. It sounds decent enough (Dungeon Siege made it work in a way), but I hate it. Other problems come with level scaling of your opponents (they match your level, so there's no sense of progression or true surprise in the creatures you encounter) lack of variety in monster and creature encounters and in conversations, city life. This stuff, and literally thousands of other mods have tweaked the game into being quite a juggernaut.

The upshot is that there is an incredible "do anything, go anywhere" open type of world you enter when you play it. You've probably heard it referred to as a "sanbox" game. There's just so much to do and interact with. And roaming. If you like just wandering and adventuring in games this is for you.

EDIT: I forgot to mention it's f--king 1st person view. That may be cool with you but I need a mod to make the over the shoulder view decent (normally there's no crosshair for aiming and your head's in the way of what you're aiming at).

I have Oblivion on Xbox.
"Maybe" I ever play this game further on or begin over again, but the leveling up system isn't the same as I have already played in other RPG's so I'm a little bit confused when playing Oblivion and the game can't hold my attention for long ... but maybe I must give Oblivion a second change ... But for me it has no haste ... first other games

In Oblivion the enemies level up with your hero! This I find boring and not so interesting thing. But I read on other forums there're gamers who really love Oblivion's gameplay system !!

The voice-acting and the variation in dungeons and other things in the world of Oblivion I find not so strong/good! For example: in many dungeons I have the 'feeling' they're almost the same ...

The levelling system didn't bother me so much at the beginning, but after a while (well, quite a long while: several hundred hours of gameplay!) I began to get rather bored of it since in essence it just meant that the appearance of one's adversaries changed but very little else did, eventually leading to a bit of a feeling of "what's the point?" To born2beagator (or any other prospective players), fortunately there's a plethora of mods to change that, from the relatively simple to the very complex: the latter I found to be more rewarding, but even experienced players can have trouble with some of the hairier installations.

It should be noted that, although a common complaint, it's still subjective and many if not most players are perfectly content with it. But I wouldn't gamble on it and being able to add in endless user-made mods is probably Oblivion's biggest strength, especially considering the enormous wealth of stuff that's available - so either way, get the PC version! This is really important.

Voice acting is another bugbear for many: not because it's poor quality (even though Lynda Carter's not-exactly-subtle voice in a mediaeval setting is an acquired taste for some ) but because of the somewhat dubious decision to make all of the dialogue voiced: which means they'd quickly run out of space if they used a lot of voice actors, which means you only get 11 regular voices: the effect of this is for example that the dunmer, altmer and bosmer races all share exactly two voice actors, one male, one female, and however good one thinks they may or may not be, that's pushing it a bit. Though again mods can help, and someone's raised and lowered the pitches between races where actors are shared; not a comprehensive solution, but it makes a difference.

Oblivion's what one makes of it, really. Some people see what it isn't, give up too fast and hate it forever; others see just what they always wanted and love it; sometimes it's easy to see a lot of people pointing out its shortcomings, but actually a lot of people (not all of them new to RPGs, I should add) like it perfectly well out of the box. My personal feeling is that with a little work it has the potential to be one of the best games going: anyone who doesn't like levelling, wants better graphics, new towns, a few extra quests, new NPCs hanging round, an entirely different approach to their character's attributes, guars and so on can find the answer to their questions and more other stuff than they could possibly imagine at modders' sites such as TES Nexus.

I was going to post a few modding essentials but I guess I shouldn't get ahead of myself!

The biggest problem about level scaling is that there is no sense of accomplishment. You'll also be able to finish the enemy if you didn't completely screw up during leveling.

I think the reason for including this is mostly because gamers nowadays generally lack patience and will drop a game if they die more than two times on an encounter... and then go to a game forum to loudly proclaim how much the game 'sucks'.

What I like about open-world games like Gothic 3 and Risen is this game features high-placed content and the possibility to run into powerful enemies from the very start, meaning one should first become stronger before even trying to tackle them.

Abysmal voice acting aside, even Two Worlds is better in this regard than Oblivion.