What was your first RPG game?

[Morki]

Can you come up with any game that fills these criteria, that is NOT an FPS game?

Deus Ex and Arx Fatalis, STALKER. =^
And Back then, Arena, the Might and Magic series, and so on.

That definition is so wide that it will include games that shouldn't be in there. Like X-Com, or Ocarina of Time, or God of War games, or even some Tower Defense games.

I agree. In this type of discussion I often come up with Severance, a third-persona action game with experience and level up changing nothing more than health, stamina and automatical access to new combos. Dull and metro ticket thin story, but great game though.
Or with Outcast. Much more of a Zelda like, but vaster with a much more vivid universe, tons and tons of side-quests, open world, but no experience, no level, no increasing life points, and equipment, if important, was not that crucial, it was mainly based on exploration and quest-solving.

About your statement on combat: I guess it's mainly right, but I'd like to recall Planescape Torment. In this one, as I recall it, there are only two unavoidable combats, you can even solve the final boss encounter without fighting (which I find excellent). So I guess RPGs may not be defined by their content, but their purpose. Maybe
Well everytime someone comes up with a content based definition, we can repell it. With the evil dishonesty only redhead sorcerers can provide, but yes we can.

In my humble opinion, the main thingy in RPGs is choice, which can be met on several levels.
1. Choice on which side you're on from TES factions to dialogues trees in Mass Effect.
2. Character customization from Icewind dale II races to Last days of Gaïa classes, including what mantra you choose for your DGS characters.
3. Choice on where you're going, from swimming your way to the Varant desert before going in Reddock in Gothic 3 to choosing on which planet you're going first in KOTOR.
4. Choice on who you're signing on with, from the insane amount of Chrono Cross playable characters to the combos you can make in Chrono Trigger, including strategies you set up with your pals in Guild Wars. Let's call it team management.
I guess you have to have two or three of those strongly enough to pretend being a RPG, but what is strong enough? idk

I admit, this way of thinking makes most of J-RPGs poor as RPG games. Classes based system are rare commodity, you often can't choose anything*. To me (but then again, it's only my opinion, so please don't rage-fu me) they're action-adenvure games with stat points. You follow a story, but you cannot leave it and see what's on the other side of the hill. There are exceptions, of course, but those game rely more on story-telling and bashing monsters and let choice alone in a locked up crate. They're more a kind of bonus where you have to dwell in super detailed walkthrough to even be aware of it (if anyone on earth managed to play with Heat in party in DGS 2 without knowing what to do, may I never play Overgrowth when it's released )


Although, first RPG was Baldur's gate in summer 1999; doesn't make me any younger


*Don't you dare speak of the FFX system to me. That's the biggest lie I've ever seen in that matter so far.

[Endoperez]

I'll reply to this later when I have more time, but I do think combat is a big part of RPG genre.

There's already a name for games where you solve problems through items and talking: adventure games. If you played PS:T without fighting (not quite possible, I know, but still), how would it differ from a theoretical "isometric adventure game"?

[Morki]

Vastness and choice.

I know, the only difference between, let's say, Silver and The Longuest Journey are combat, and stat points. Silver is considered a RPG, I do not. You do not choose, you're compelled to a path, like in a FF or Anachronox. I know, I may be a little extreme, but in many games you have to solve puzzles, chat and fight stuff, your character becomes stronger, by gear or level up, or both.

Games with stat points were called RPGs 'cause that's where the stat points came from in the first place by marketting shitheads barely knowing what they were blabling about.
And aside from Dark Messiah of Might and Magic (where it's not that a big deal) and Sacrifice, (where it is, this basically strategy game has many RPG aspects), I can't recall any non-RPG game that has a great deal of choice* :
1°) Half-Life: just a thingy at the end, HL² assumes you choose to work for the G-Man.
2°) Myst: free Sirus or Achenar, big deal, true end comes when you do free neither, sequels assume you did it that way.
3°) Blood Omen: LoK series assumed you choose not to sacrifice yourself.
4°) Letting the companion cube live is more an easter egg than anything else.
5°) Deus Ex 2? Don't talk to me about it, it changes almost nothing.

*I know. Open stuff like freelancer and Edge of Chaos have their fair share of choice, because you can go wherever you want, to find jobs, but it doesn't change the story or any evolution. It works more or less like Baldur's Gate did. Linear main story, non-linear exploration to boost yourself. And ships have stat points. Damn. So why isn't Edge of Chaos a RPG? -_-
Because we are, as gamers define gendras, conservative.
Because we are still not ready to define a game by it's purpose or content, but by it's set of rules, therefore combat+exploration+stat points makes RPG.
I admit; I strongly desagree.
To me, a good RPG is a place of choice and story-based game (not that I do not enjoy epic fights in RPG. But they're secondary).

[Endoperez]

Hum, an RPG without choices. I can't come up with one ATM. You might be on to something here.

1) Choose your faction, which side you ally with - usually not available for the same character/team in most genres. You can't play as Joe McSoldier the traitor in the Generic WW2 Game. However, this might be a result of an open world, instead of a result of being an RPG. I'm not sure how many open-world shooter games there are. Borderlands, perhaps?
There are also RPGs, mostly JRPGs but there are probably Western ones too, where you don't have many meaningful choices. Linear plot and optional subquests, with perhaps one or two choices along the way that might affect the ending somehow.

So I'm not sure if it's a meaningful statistic. It's like subquests - you only find them in RPGs, but "achievements" and "bonus task" and other similar mechanics are pretty much the same thing. In RPGs, you choose the faction through dialogue inside the game. In an FPS or RTS, you choose the faction when you select your campaign.

2) Character customization - I listed this already in my list, so obviously I'm going to agree with it. Some systems don't give the player a "choose how to distribute your skill points" screen, but you can do something in most games. For example, in JRPGs, you customize characters through equipment, and the points you spend is your gold. Who gets the best equipment? Do you buy the new best stuff every time you find a new shop, or do you save money by only buying new stuff when it's a significant improvement? There's lots of choices there, although it's easy to miss it.

3) RPGs don't need to be open-ended! An RPG with linear story is still an RPG. Planescape: Torment is a good example.

4) Character selection is common in RPGs where you control a group of people, but there's also RPGs where you're a lone ranger type of guy. Elder Scrolls games are like this.


Many RPGs have more choice than you usually have, or at least it feels like you have. However, I'd wager much of that is because your choices feel important, because of NPCs reacting to your choices. In most games with a war theme, there's a host of achievements and such you can only get by saving X number of ambushed allies/civilians/whatever. They don't feel as important if the only reward is more points to put in stuff, or more gold. In RPGs, the reward is usually more points and/or more gold AND extra dialogue, and usually being able to talk to (some of) those guys later.

[Untadaike]

Table-top: Star Wars Roleplaying Game.

Computer: Minesweeper The MMORPG.

[Morki]

I admit, choices that radically change the story are few (I can think of Deus Ex and Arx Fatalis, Gothic 3 (I can't yet tell about Dragon Age but I doubt it, and cause Risen is by Pyrhana bytes, choices may really affect the story), can't really think of any other). But then again, it's hard enough to set up a good story if your player can't put it to shreds. Implies to much variables. Maybe one day Bioware story-telling (free from EA shitheads) will meet that end, or Bethesda will have a decent story, or Obsidian will overcome their technical issues... I'm daydreaming, I know.
For that, grab your books, a set of friends, pencil, sheets & let's roll.

1°) I admit, I don't fancy recent shooters for now (mainly case my new computer is brand new and I have bigger fish to fry, most recent I have played so far is Bioshock), so I can't tell.
But Borderlands claimed to be a child or RPG (more like hack'n'slash to me), and Stalker takes a lot from there too. I can think of a few open world games where you do not have much choice (a few fetch quest to buy upgrades in a story where you could have had to choose sides; pity really; name is Beyond Good and Evil; another one is Scrapland, no choice at all, it's full Arcade. Rachet and Clank series can be considered open world since you can travel back to unlock everything and buy/upgrades all weapons. Soul Reaver was a bit of open world, when you had all main powers). Can think at a few open world shooters where you upgrade your gear.
GTA, Just Cause & Mafia are open world, but personnally I do not consider sandbox as choice.

I guess that to make an open world game, you need interest to go back, either story or loot. If story based only, it's cause you have to go back, ergo I do not consider that you being able to go back even if totally useless is making sthg open-world (yes, I'm thinking final fantastuff and the like. Dungeon Siege also. And Mass Effect; only one place you may want to go back to. Once). But if going back is loot* based, and useless to the story, then going back is a choice (I'll make one exception: doing the first levels over and over in platformers to get more lives).

Difference between a RPG subquest and and platformer secret level, or a FPS achievement, is that it may make you drift from the main quest almost completely. Even an action based RPG like Icewind Dale can do that. In my opnion (but as I have not yet played those games I might be wrong), Achievements affect the way you play the main campaign; they will not make you turn away from it.

3) I agree. Open ends creates only frustration when no sequel is scheduled. Advent Rising, Anachronox and Dreamfall are awfull with that, and Dreamfall is the only one that may find its conclusion when Fundom is done with The Secret World.

4) Yup. There are exceptions, as always (Arx Fatalis and Gothic Series -though and GOthic you can sometimes team up with a computer controlled ally-), but they're an important part of {Interplay; Black Isle; Bioware} and J-RPG games, so I think it has its place here. Except in Mass Effect (though I haven't played Dragon Age nor Drakensang yet), you do not choose your team members lightely.

I strongly agree with your last comment. Having the illusions that what you do have an impact. That's why I wanna count Outcast among Zelda-like RPGs.
*by loot I mean sidequest, dialogue, items, anything non related to main plot.

[underthedeep]

NOOBS

[Morki]

At least you made me learn sthg today. Try being a vampire while larping.

[Renegade_Turner]

I've never felt more sorry for a group of people in my life.

[Endoperez]

I've never felt more sorry for a group of people in my life.

That's how I feel every time I see drunk people. Larpers? A big group of random people doing random and weird stuff, possibly fighting over something one of them imagined, and having good memories afterwards. Young people in a bar? A big group of random people doing random and weird stuff, possible fighting over something one of them imagined, and having a hangover afterwards.

Also:

[Renegade_Turner]

I can tell you LARP.

People who get drunk enough to start imagining things that aren't there? I feel sorry for them too, because that's never happened to me. And I generally don't get hangovers. When I wake up after a night of having drinks with friends, I'm generally just more thirsty and than I usually am when I wake up.

And I feel sorry for the guys in that video and that picture too. Slightly less sorry than the guys in Monster Camp, though.

[underthedeep]

If I LARPed then I would most certainly have to be drunk, or something. I would probably incorporate it into my characters persona. Anyways who is to say we always get hangovers? As long as you don't go binging, eat properly, and stay hydrated you are good to go the next day.



I am the cat master.

[Renegade_Turner]

Yeah, I always have a pint of water before bed after I've been drinking. Y'know, replenish all the stuff your body's missing, like electrolytes and all that good stuff. And all the other 'lytes. I dunno, I'm not a scientist.

Really though, why did he pick binge drinking as a comparison? That's equally sad.

[Endoperez]

I can tell you LARP.

I don't, and I don't drink either. It's just that Finnish drinking culture is fucked up.



That's called a dachshund. They're common since sixpacks have too little beer. For one Friday evening. For a single person. It's not always like that, but then, sometimes people go to bar after starting with that. I think - I don't really socialize with people when they're drinking like that.


Any way, I am interested in larping, and also pen&paper type RPGs, but I haven't gotten to play them for real. Dungeons & Dragons and such. They both sound like they can be great fun, with the right type of people, and there's some really cool accessories that you only get to use in larps. Because we don't have any masquerades or carnivals in Finland.

Also, if you're dissing larpers, I wonder what you think of SCAdians... They're a group in the US who organize in "kingdoms", dress up as pseudo-medieval people, invent a pseudo-medieval persona, and fight in pseudo-medieval fights. Not all the time, obviously, but still... (In case it isn't clear how this is different from larpers, most larps are more or less one-time events, and much less serious. Also, larpers don't bow or curtsie to the game organizers in real life. Or call them nobles. )

[Assaultman67]

Shit, I'd give larping a try ...

After hating anime with a passion before giving it at try, and then finding out that there are some really REALLY good anime series out there, I'm willing to give practically anything a try if it don't hurt my health or life goals ... significantly.

Then again, I might feel differently about it tomorrow.