Duck and Cover

Yes, he thinks it's an adventure game. Which...okay, but someone else might call it an RPG, because it's so heavy on character development. This is where the disagreement starts. Again, I think it mostly comes down to personal opinion and preference. Apples and oranges, both fruit, etc.

Final Fantasy is shit.

What good is character development if there is nothing you can do to shape said development? It's already pre-determined before you ever touch the game. Final Fantasy and its ilk are basically playable books where you can control just very small sections that bare absolutely no influence on the game.

Subhuman wrote:fruit

YOU'RE A FRUIT.

Olol.

And also ; A vegetable. Zany !

ol.

K.N - Carry on (O Lucinda).

Subhuman wrote:Final Fantasy games are linear. Are they not RPGs?

That is correct...

Let us call this the RHG (Role Helping Game) where as you can only help you character through a pre defined role by choosing his strengths.

:blarg:

You are too strict. Remember that there are many RPG types commonly accepted already. Being aRPG and jRPG. If you tried to include them in your definition it will all work.

Because this thread drags on and on with people arguing on same things over and over, I'll just sum up what I have to say and never post again*

Basically, on gaming platforms there are three types of RPGs:

Action RPG(aRPG), which puts emphasis on combat and joy of slaughtering. Main features: Quests easy and simple, abilities with mouse equal to stats in combat, and combat usually solves all problems. Examples: Diablo series, Baldur's Gate series, all dungeon crawlers.

wapa... Japanese RPG(jRPG), which puts emphasis on being shi... on story? I guess. Main features: Quests easy and simple, "deep" "story", "character" "development", and these suck. Examples: FF, CT, whatever

Computer RPG(cRPG), which puts - or tries to - emphasis on freedom for character. Main features: Freedom of character and in game world, quests which can be solved in many ways. Examples: Fallout, Arcanum, you know that shit


So according to this the much controversial Deus Ex and SS2 would be classified as action RPGs, WHICH DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE MORE RPGs THAN FPS', but that if you wanted to label them you should choose a. The End.




* - Two day warranty

Subhuman wrote:System Shock 2

It doesn't have dragons. Therefore it's not an RPG.

SHODAN is, amongst many things, a (bit of a) dragon. Ergo, System Shock 1/2 are RPGs.

Subhuman wrote:Final Fantasy games are linear. Are they not RPGs?

Just admit it, y'all don't want to consider the idea that an FPS could also be an RPG at the same time, because RPGs are to be worshipped by the gaming cognoscenti and FPSs are for the unwashed graphics-whoring masses.

There are those FPS that push the envelope (SS2, Thief, DX), but fact of the matter is a FPS can get by with just shiny graphics and knee-jerk gameplay. That makes the FPS disposable, because without substantive gameplay, 6 mos later a shinier one grabs your attention.

Exact same thing can be said about what RTS games have done to strategy gaming. Nothing but Dune 2 clones for the last 15 years? Is that the best you can do?

Cimmerian Nights wrote: Exact same thing can be said about what RTS games have done to strategy gaming. Nothing but Dune 2 clones for the last 15 years? Is that the best you can do?

I'm curious; because a game as units and a down-view, it's automatically a clone of Dune 2?

Don't you rather mean that the games that came one after another *resembled* the previous, so it seems that no matter what you play today, it reminds you of Dune2?

I don't know about you, but thought it sucked. I liked the setting, but it was awfully tedious to play. It wasn't before Total Annihilation that I began to like RTS'.

Cimmerian Nights wrote:Exact same thing can be said about what RTS games have done to strategy gaming. Nothing but Dune 2 clones for the last 15 years? Is that the best you can do?

Yet you forget titles like Close Combat, Total War and Ground Control? The RTS genre has evolved since Dune 2. The same can't be said about RPGs after Fallout.

I'll dare to add; Battle Zone. Genius idea, too bad it wasn't executed all that well.

And let's not forget Homeworld.

homeworld didn't do shit beyond adding a 3d plane

Yes, and? It was a step forward.

Not really. It didn't add much beyond just looking at ships flying around...IN TRUE 3D!

Homeworld is very relaxing. Watching my little ships fly around is like watching fish in a fishtank. It's true.

Naked_Lunch wrote:Not really. It didn't add much beyond just looking at ships flying around...IN TRUE 3D!

If your mind is too small to conceive strategy in third dimension, don't worry. There aren't many space RTS'.

Saying that there was nothing original since Dune 2 is like saying there was nothing original since Dungeon Master.

Command&Conquer expanded the genre and set the basics, Starcraft pioneered multiple different races, TA used completely opposite idea and focused on macro instead of micro, Homeworld added z axis, new Dawn of War addon will expland Starcraft's idea of different races up to 7. You can go with more realistic Ground Control or command your forces in TPP in Sacrifice. Not to mention hundreds of small fearures each of these games had.


What the hell is wrong with you?

And by that logic, every FPS is a Doom clone, every CRPG is an Ultima clone, every racing game is a Pole Position clone, every strategy game is a Sim City clone. This argument is stupid.

Koki wrote:Starcraft pioneered multiple different races

Dune had three races though =/
Unless you mean radically different races, which I completely agree with.