Top 5 rpg

haroon said:

Click to expand...

Most JRPG have absolutely zero amount of "roleplaying" (the important part in "RPG". There are predetermined characters that you can't change, a predetermined story that you can't change, and absolutely no choice ever that actually affect what happens in the game.

There is often a marvelous world to see, and the storytelling is more often than not quite stronger than in western RPG, but that's "adventure", not "roleplay".

Zack said:

You really should play Mass Effect 3.

Click to expand...

ME3 is great if you either totally lack any amount of critical thinking, or you just don't care about abysmal plot and ruined potential, or at the very least you can ignore it all and focus on the dialogue and relationship with the crew.

If not in these case, ME3 is a complete letdown.

Akka said:

ME3 is great if you either totally lack any amount of critical thinking, or you just don't care about abysmal plot and ruined potential, or at the very least you can ignore it all and focus on the dialogue and relationship with the crew.

If not in these case, ME3 is a complete letdown.

Click to expand...

Oh, stop being so melodramatic. The combat is fantastic, and there are plenty of awesome story moments (especially interactions with other characters). It's a great game with some flaws, but it's absurd to say only stupid people like it.

Akka said:

Most JRPG have absolutely zero amount of "roleplaying" (the important part in "RPG". There are predetermined characters that you can't change, a predetermined story that you can't change, and absolutely no choice ever that actually affect what happens in the game.

There is often a marvelous world to see, and the storytelling is more often than not quite stronger than in western RPG, but that's "adventure", not "roleplay".

Click to expand...

Well, yes, which is why almost everyone I know considers jRPG's and western RPG's to be two completely different genres. That's why I listed them separately in this thread, because they really only share superficial similarities, in most important respects they're not the same thing at all.

Akka said:

Most JRPG have absolutely zero amount of "roleplaying" (the important part in "RPG". There are predetermined characters that you can't change, a predetermined story that you can't change, and absolutely no choice ever that actually affect what happens in the game.

There is often a marvelous world to see, and the storytelling is more often than not quite stronger than in western RPG, but that's "adventure", not "roleplay".

Click to expand...

Not really Akka, just take example breath of fire 2, you can actually change the course of the story, you can chose to actually save the world or to ruin the world instead, there are 3 types of ending in breath of fire 2, also in breath of fire 3 you been given similar option.

How about Chrono Trigger? there are 10 types of ending that you can achieve depend on when and how you save the world from Lavos. Compare to that with Morrowind, even though Morrowind seem to have an open world and many side quest, but the main storyline is monotonous, the aim is singular also the end which is: you know how to kill dagoth ur and you kill it, and there is only one way to kill it.

In final fantasy 7, you can have an optional character like Vincent or in Chrono Trigger you can chose to either defeat Magus or take him in your party. And you can custom your character in final fantasy 7 by your chose of weapon and materia.

I rather try to differentiate what is rpg from adventure game or mmorpg, by strong storyline, more interactive world, levelling system, weapon and equipment, and storyline must be put as priority than building character strength, fighting and solving puzzle (which in mmorpg and adventure game these are the main part of the game, a tiring part of these genre is that in my point of view).

Mostly in adventure you just solving puzzle to be rewarded with another puzzle, or in mmorpg, you fight through a dungeon just to be rewarded by another long boring dungeon, but in rpg you pass a puzzle and being reward by finding a new city, a new character, or progressing the storyline or you gain more intimacy with other character in your party.

While in Bethesda game compare to JRPG you have a lack of intimacy with the npc that you are dealing with, the character is so wide and colossal but without depth. But again you still categorize it as rpg Akka while Jrpg can be more rpg than Morrowind, I'm sorry even though I'm a huge elderscroll fans, but truth is the truth, I love truth more than I love elderscroll.

I can accept (because I understand) even though not fully agree civver definition of rpg, but yours definition I hardly agree with that. JRPG especially the oldschool one is the best rpg the market ever offer.

Sorry, but...
"ROLE PLAYING" game. Exploration and changing your gear isn't "roleplaying". Making at most two or three choices in the entire game, having a character with a set personality and set dialogues, isn't "roleplaying" either.

It's not because there is an XP meter that there is roleplay - though it seems to be the only criterium required to classify something as a RPG, considering pure action games like Diablo managed to get the label.
And it's not a flaw not to be a RPG. I don't know why people become suddendly so defensive when it's shown that there is no ROLEPLAYING in their own favourite games. It's just a set of criteria, not a recognition of quality.

Akka said:

Sorry, but...
"ROLE PLAYING" game. Exploration and changing your gear isn't "roleplaying". Making at most two or three choices in the entire game, having a character with a set personality and set dialogues, isn't "roleplaying" either.

It's not because there is an XP meter that there is roleplay - though it seems to be the only criterium required to classify something as a RPG, considering pure action games like Diablo managed to get the label.
And it's not a flaw not to be a RPG. I don't know why people become suddendly so defensive when it's shown that there is no ROLEPLAYING in their own favourite games. It's just a set of criteria, not a recognition of quality.

Click to expand...

I'm not defensive I just can't accept your claim that final fantasy, chrono trigger, even you said: all of the JRPG legacy is not actually an rpg but an adventure game. I don't have problem to accept that JRPG is an adventure game, lets say if it is as you say it just make me like.. "hey I actually not only enjoy playing rpg game, I really love non rpg adventure game like final fantasy" I don't have problem to dealt with that so no reason for me to be defensive.

So now let me learn from you, so what is your definition of role playing? what kind of aspects that essentially exist in the role playing game? I already make a clear definition for myself on what is RPG and what difference it with MMORPG and adventure game, now I want to hear your point of view, and I will make sure myself open minded with your view, so lets hear it from you.

My favorite - Baldur's Gate II. I really enjoyed playing this game.

It sounds like Akka is saying you need to have a branching or otherwise interactive storyline as a required element for role-playing games, and RPG-like games with a linear plot are basically adventure games with a coat of paint.

I am with Akka. Computer RPGs came from pen and paper table role playing games, where YOU take the role of a character and YOU do whatever YOU want inside an imaginary world. Computer roleplaying games should at least try to mimic that before having the title "RPG" stamped on them. Some, the (IMO) real PC RPGs do a nice work on it, but in most computer "RPGs" you only do whatever you are scripted to do, you dont take any role, simply play exactly as the game designer wanted you to do. That is not RPG but Adventure games or maked up Third Person Shooters.

Antilogic said:

It sounds like Akka is saying you need to have a branching or otherwise interactive storyline as a required element for role-playing games, and RPG-like games with a linear plot are basically adventure games with a coat of paint.

Click to expand...

not to be stubborn here, as I stated the world of Chrono Trigger or Breath of Fire 2 can be arguably more interactive and less linier than Morrowind. I don't know if it is a valid argument or still my limited English still don't get the point that Akka made.

Thorgalaeg said:

I am with Akka. Computer RPGs came from pen and paper table role playing games, where YOU take the role of a character and YOU do whatever YOU want inside an imaginary world. Computer roleplaying games should at least try to mimic that before having the title "RPG" stamped on them. Some, the (IMO) real PC RPGs do a nice work on it, but in most computer "RPGs" you only do whatever you are scripted to do, you dont take any role, simply play exactly as the game designer wanted you to do. That is not RPG but Adventure games or maked up Third Person Shooters.

Click to expand...

how about JRPG Thorgalaeg? my classic example, you can actually chose to save the world or not save the world in breath of fire 2, or save the world and also more . Or in Chrono Trigger there are 10 way with 10 difference result on how you save the world and when you save the world, you can actually defeat your enemy or convert him into your party.

I will argue that Jrpg it is part of the world RPG legacy, and they hold crucial role in rpg history.

We've had this discussion a couple of years ago and it was ugly. The problem is that a lot of people seem to think the fact that those japanese style games aren't really RPGs is somewhat offensive or dismissive towards that genre. And that's not true, some of these games are amongst my favorites, but I'm also on the fence about calling them RPGs. Especially as someone who plays a lot of table-top role-playing games.

The number of punctual story-line altering decisions made, or the number of endings... I mean some first person shooters feature similar things in similar numbers. I wouldn't say that's a great indicator.

haroon said:

not to be stubborn here, as I stated the world of Chrono Trigger or Breath of Fire 2 can be arguably more interactive and less linier than Morrowind. I don't know if it is a valid argument or still my limited English still don't get the point that Akka made.

Click to expand...

There's a spectrum, of course. Some JRPG games are 100% linear with the "but thou must!" decisions (thinking of Dragon Warrior/Quest here), and others are like Chrono Trigger with a significant variety of side quests that can be accomplished in the endgame.

haroon said:

So now let me learn from you, so what is your definition of role playing? what kind of aspects that essentially exist in the role playing game? I already make a clear definition for myself on what is RPG and what difference it with MMORPG and adventure game, now I want to hear your point of view, and I will make sure myself open minded with your view, so lets hear it from you.

Click to expand...

It seems pretty "water is wet" to me. I already pointed it and emphasized it, it's downright the very words used to define the genre : "ROLE-PLAYING game". Roleplay.

"role-playing" REQUIRES, by its very definition, the idea of being able to take meaningful decisions, chose what to say and chose what to do. If you're following the story without being able to affect it nor affect who your character is, then it's not "playing a ROLE", it's "playing a STORY". Again, there is no problem in that (I vastly prefer FF7 over BG1 for example), but you can't call a game without meaningful ability to play a role a "role-playing" game, just like you can't call a FPS a game where you see your character in the third person and you don't shoot.

Morrowind allows you to define who you are playing, what you do, chose who to side with and who to fight, decide what are your motives to follow (or not) the main storyline. The main storyline may have only one final outcome, but you are able to roleplay (decide who you are and how you act) on the way.

Chronotrigger (which is, BTW, among my very favourite games) does not allow any significant decision-making : the "alternate" endings are bonus you can reach through New Game+ (or insane grinding maybe ^^), not decisions, and the only actual decision I can remember is to spare or kill Magus, and it has nearly no effect in the game. There is no way at all to roleplay, to be someone else that who the designers decided the hero would be, or to take decisions different than the story dictates.

Of course, I suppose there is some games which looks like "JRPG" but which are actually truly RPG. But the overwhelming majority of these games are about a story without variation (or with only one or two) with select characters who are already entirely defined, both physically and mentally. They can just as much be very good games, but they don't have the defining element of RPG - just like Diablo was fabulously fun, but it was not a RPG in any way despite what was printed on the box.

I'm more of a linguistic realist. Words and names mean what they are understood to mean. Most people consider irregardless to mean regardless; thus, irregardless means regardless. Similarly, most people (who have heard of it at all) call Diablo an RPG; thus, it is an RPG.

Does it make any logical sense? No. In fact, it's crazy and flies in the face of the common-sense meanings of those terms. But language doesn't have to make logical sense; it just has to convey meaning. If you tell someone "Torchlight is an RPG like Diablo," they know exactly what you're talking about.

If you disagree with me, congratulations; you have plenty of company. You might prefer neopositivism.

The one major point I'd make though is that it's a pretty damn stupid point to get hung up on when discussing classifying video games. If someone wants to call a game an RPG, and everyone understands what they mean, who cares if it is an illogical label?

I went into google and typed "RPG website". First result shows why we care at least slightly:

http://www.rpgsite.net/

coanda said:

I'm more of a linguistic realist. Words and names mean what they are understood to mean. Most people consider irregardless to mean regardless; thus, irregardless means regardless. Similarly, most people (who have heard of it at all) call Diablo an RPG; thus, it is an RPG.

Does it make any logical sense? No. In fact, it's crazy and flies in the face of the common-sense meanings of those terms. But language doesn't have to make logical sense; it just has to convey meaning. If you tell someone "Torchlight is an RPG like Diablo," they know exactly what you're talking about.

If you disagree with me, congratulations; you have plenty of company. You might prefer neopositivism.

The one major point I'd make though is that it's a pretty damn stupid point to get hung up on when discussing classifying video games. If someone wants to call a game an RPG, and everyone understands what they mean, who cares if it is an illogical label?

Click to expand...

I'm one of the nitpickers who disagrees with you, largely because the changing meaning and context of words can make older records unintelligible or can be used for discriminatory or defamatory purposes.

But yeah, I'll just say agree to disagree and move on, no further reason for my derail of the thread to continue.

I agree with Conada mostly, besides where is there a definition of role playing game that everyone agrees on? By playing Link in a link to the past you are assuming his role in the story so technically speaking from a semantics point of view you are in a role playing game. Now the story has no options and you can't customize your character at all, which all hallmarks of rpgs. But you are still playing a role in a story. Just cus you can't change the role doesn't mean you aren't experiencing it and playing it out.

Also genres in video games are too rigid anyway. You can say platformer and it makes sense right away, or 3rd person shooter cus of the perspective but as we get more and more into the video games transcending games and becoming art and overall entertainment experiences those genre lines blur. Like with ign's game of the year in 2012, Journey. Many argued it wasn't even a game, so trying to assign a genre to it seems even more silly.

I think Conada is right that genres matter for describing a game experience to someone else and that's about it. Who cares about actual rules and whether a game fits a narrow definition?

I think, I stand between Coanda and Anti-Logic here. The terms of Jrpg is already too convent to not be called rpg, in other hand to call it "adventure" game also not true, we cannot put Final Fantasy in the same category like monkey island or action adventure game, of course it is different. And we cannot put also Jrpg in the category of MMOrpg like Diablo.

What ever it is JRPG is more rpg than adventure game or mmorpg, even though it may have lack of rpg element, but in my opinion this lack of rpg element like choosing gender in the character creation, put up strenght etc etc, chose your own portraits, that make you have a false impression that you actually have a difference character, which the main essence of the character it not so much difference, it just change the status and ability but isn't change so much to the personality of the character. What ever character you chose in Ultima you will always be the avatar; what ever character you build in Skyrim you always be the dragon born, so on in Morrowind you always be this ex prisoner; and in Oblivion you always be the chosen one that appear in the dream of the emperor.

But not all JRPG totally absent of rpg element, Valkyrie Profile for example, actually your character have lots of option, to be obedience or not being obedience to Odin by sending the artifact back to him or keep it for yourselves. You also should make decision which character you will be send to Valhalla and which one you want to keep for yourselves, are you sending the character that Odin need or you send it not fit with the requirement. And all of this also effect the course of the games. While I will also further argue there lots of pc rpg that cripple of rpg element more than Japanese rpg, just take easy example Ultima 8.

In conclusion, for the sake of language convention as it already use for decades Japanese rpg as rpg, and for not generalizing the whole JRPG genre as not true rpg while the whole western rpg genre as the true rpg, I think it is better for us to call JRPG as JRPG. It is still rpg, but it is not in the understanding of conventional western definition of what is rpg, it have its own style and definition: unique.

Of course it will be problematic also if you put a category Jrpg as adventure game, just imagine if I post in Kryakos thread a top 5 list of my favourite japanese rpg in the top 5 adventure game, I think that will draw lots of confusion, I think peoples will think I'm crazy, therefore the understanding of JRPG as an adventure game is not acceptable in public mind and not understandable for the public. Therefore, lets call it japanese rpg (jrpg)

I think this is mostly a lumper/splitter argument, and a perfectly interesting and worthwhile one at that.

I'd be interested in seeing Akka's precise names and definitions for the various types of games discussed in this thread - not because I necessarily disagree with him, but because he's the one arguing for a more precise definition of what a "true" RPG is, so the burden is kinda on him to set the boundaries.

What is it, exactly, that makes something a "true" RPG? Can computer games even be true RPGs without a sentient GM behind the wheel of the experience?
Is Diablo an "action-RPG" or something else?
Should we come up with another name for JRPGs?