What [not shmup] game are you playing now?

[XoPachi]

This game owns.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/8292 ... ild_Masks/

[Squire Grooktook]

To quote what I said to Blinge on discord about Dark Souls as a jrpg:

Squire Grooktook — Today at 5:51 AM
My own feelings on "IS DARKSOULS A JRPG!?!?!!?"

The answer is a very technical yes, but as I was saying about "the average joe perspective", saying "jrpg" tends to imply certain things which Dark Souls is very much not. It's definitely a roleplaying game though, so I think it's more accurate to just call it an action rpg and leave at that. Anything else feels deceptive in one way or another

Dark Souls is in fact pretty close to the platonic ideal of a true "action rpg". I've talked about this before in the fromsoft thread but "RPG" and "Action" are usually diametrically opposed because one is about abstract simulation, and the other is about skill. But Fromsoft have cut their teeth on both (much like Falcom) and knew how to weave roleplaying mechanics into a skill-based action game in a way that both complimented eachother in genuinely meaningful ways, from the character progression to the world progression. So it's absolutely an action game and absolutely an rpg and absolutely great.

[vol.2]

It's definitely a roleplaying game

Does it have role playing elements aside from items and player stats? Like, for example, does it have a main story that you play through in the role of a character, completing a quest and driving the story as you go?

[Squire Grooktook]

It's definitely a roleplaying game

Does it have role playing elements aside from items and player stats? Like, for example, does it have a main story that you play through in the role of a character, completing a quest and driving the story as you go?

Yes, deep character creation and progression, lots of different ways of progressing through the world, different interactions with npc's based on your actions and choices, a loose form of alignment maybe, and multiple endings based on all that. It's silent protagonist instead of dialogue trees but it's pretty much designed around the idea that you'll be headcanoning a personality and motivation for the character you've created.

[Licorice]

So, because it has so many elements in common with WRPGs that people regularly confuse it for a western game, you want to call it a JRPG so people stop confusing it with WRPGs?

Well, I don't think there are many elements in common, or rather when there are, there's a more similar Japanese precedent.

What? 7th Saga? You're dreaming. I've played that game and Dark Souls looks nothing like it.

This is a good example. 7th Saga's companion system is a precedent for Dark Souls covenant system, something that gets misattributed to Elder Scrolls games of all things.

[Licorice]

It's definitely a roleplaying game

Does it have role playing elements aside from items and player stats? Like, for example, does it have a main story that you play through in the role of a character, completing a quest and driving the story as you go?

This is also an interesting topic.

Wizardry has none of the above, but IMO it is most definitely a computer role playing game.

To me video game RPG games (lol) branched off from tabletop RPGs 40 years ago and that's it. The acronym is no longer descriptive, just vestigal.

That's not to say there's no peeking over the fence. Video game RPGs are made with updated D&D rulesets all the time, after all, and every now and then you get a designer who says "you know, I want my game to feel more like the tabletop experience!".

Point still stands though.

[vol.2]

Yes, deep character creation and progression, lots of different ways of progressing through the world, different interactions with npc's based on your actions and choices, a loose form of alignment maybe, and multiple endings based on all that. It's silent protagonist instead of dialogue trees but it's pretty much designed around the idea that you'll be headcanoning a personality and motivation for the character you've created.

I think Action RPG is fine. There are plenty of them from the 90s that all have their own thing going for them and it's always been hard to categorize them. How do you categorize Thief, or System Shock, or Stonekeep? They are all weird hybrid beasts that are their own games. Sounds like DS is the same kind of situation where they actually created something kind of unique that grabs from different baskets and doesn't really fit into any one mold.

[CIT]

Backfire! (Arcade, 1995)

An the next isometric 2D Arcade-Racer 1CC. I just love these games.

The interesting thing about these racers is that they all play fairly differently and each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Couldn't really say which is my favorite. Unlike Drift Out '94 and 1000 Mile Rally, Backfire has 8-way controls (like Neo Drift Out and Over Top). This game's much more about driving perfect lines through fairly narrow roads and using straights to accelerate to maximum effect. I'd rate the difficulty as fairly high compared with other games of this type.

I really dig the audiovisuals (big-ass sprites, colors that pop, cheezy buttrock) and the variation in course — sometimes you do several laps, sometimes you go one way. Would've been nice to not just have the music in the beginning of the races.

Kick-ass game, unfortunately the PCB is pretty hard to dig up. With the right kick harness it's possible to connect it to a second cab for some 2P action.

Imma give this one 8/10 exhaust pipes!

[Vanguard]

Does it have role playing elements aside from items and player stats? Like, for example, does it have a main story that you play through in the role of a character, completing a quest and driving the story as you go?

Your actions and dialogue choices affect the outcomes of the game's side quests and its NPC's personal stories and that's as far as roleplaying ever goes in video games.

This is also an interesting topic.

Wizardry has none of the above, but IMO it is most definitely a computer role playing game.

To me video game RPG games (lol) branched off from tabletop RPGs 40 years ago and that's it. The acronym is no longer descriptive, just vestigal.

Right, all "RPG" means anymore is that your numbers go up.

This is a good example. 7th Saga's companion system is a precedent for Dark Souls covenant system, something that gets misattributed to Elder Scrolls games of all things.

Yeah man I always join Valsu's covenant after that one time I had to start the whole game over because he stole my rune and kept spamming Elixir and it was impossible to kill him. It's too bad because I have more fun siding with the forest hunters. What the heck are you talking about?

[vol.2]

Wizardry has none of the above, but IMO it is most definitely a computer role playing game.

The first Wizardry game (and it's scenarios) didn't have much in-game story at all, but they had a deep and detailed accompanying narrative that setup the story for the adventure. That was back in the days when there wasn't a lot of resources on the PC and they had to take care of window-dressing with text.

As they moved along, the games became a lot more involved and there were more concrete stories.

Right, all "RPG" means anymore is that your numbers go up.

That's not all it means. There are many game mechanics that are "RPG-like." Yes, you can still be an RPG and not have all of those things, I never said you couldn't, but that doesn't mean all the other elements don't count towards whether or not something has RPG elements.

[Licorice]

Wizardry has none of the above, but IMO it is most definitely a computer role playing game.

The first Wizardry game (and it's scenarios) didn't have much in-game story at all, but they had a deep and detailed accompanying narrative that setup the story for the adventure. That was back in the days when there wasn't a lot of resources on the PC and they had to take care of window-dressing with text.

As they moved along, the games became a lot more involved and there were more concrete stories.

Some for sure. Others stayed barebones.

My own preference is dungeon crawlers with little to no story, npc interaction etc. Recently I played Labyrinth of Touhou 2 and this is kind of my ideal RPG. Maybe you guys don't consider these RPGs, but to me that's what computer RPGs are all about -- optimizing or configuring your dude(s) to meet the challenges the game throws at you.

I'd call what you're talking about CYOA.

Anyway, what you call it doesn't matter, but there's a useful distinction to be had here, IMO.

[Licorice]

Yeah man I always join Valsu's covenant after that one time I had to start the whole game over because he stole my rune and kept spamming Elixir and it was impossible to kill him. It's too bad because I have more fun siding with the forest hunters. What the heck are you talking about?

lol I love 7th Saga.

I'm talking about the fact that the primary game effect of the covenants is either companions or additional foes.

[Vanguard]

That's not all it means. There are many game mechanics that are "RPG-like." Yes, you can still be an RPG and not have all of those things, I never said you couldn't, but that doesn't mean all the other elements don't count towards whether or not something has RPG elements.

Right, games like STALKER where your dude's numbers don't go up but he gets better equipment which has numbers that go up.

lol I love 7th Saga.

I'm talking about the fact that the primary game effect of the covenants is either companions or additional foes.

The primary effect of covenants is multiplayer. The primary effect of 7th Saga companions is that you get a sidekick who is much stronger than you, and a few semi-random boss fights, one of which is literally impossible. It's a real stretch to say they have much in common at all.

[vol.2]

Right, games like STALKER where your dude's numbers don't go up but he gets better equipment which has numbers that go up.

Oh, come on. Don't be so reductionist. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

If it was just about numbers going up, then there would be a whole metric shit-ton of games that are not RPGs that we would all have to start calling an RPG.

It's not just one specific thing, it's a group of things that make up one of a number of different models that are recognized as "RPG."

Over time, that has changed and morphed to include unique sub-genres like the 90's square game template and the Fallout isometric template for example.

Your definition completely ignores the gestalt of RPG genre building.

[Licorice]

The primary effect of covenants is multiplayer. The primary effect of 7th Saga companions is that you get a sidekick who is much stronger than you, and a few semi-random boss fights, one of which is literally impossible. It's a real stretch to say they have much in common at all.

OK, well imagine instead of being controlled by another human, the dudes invading you are controlled by an AI and whether you get invaded is determined randomly instead of by humans interacting with the game servers.

Dark Souls is in fact pretty close to the platonic ideal of a true "action rpg". I've talked about this before in the fromsoft thread but "RPG" and "Action" are usually diametrically opposed because one is about abstract simulation, and the other is about skill

I think of it in terms of which variables are still free once the player "possesses" the game character.

Most action RPGs just make the free variables attack and defense, and then might subdivide those into various elements the player needs to balance or introduce some rock paper scissors kind of stuff.

Dark Souls was instead a bit more interesting by making animation lengths and types free variables, as well as iframes, cooldown, and knockback, in addition to the usual stuff.

The customization in Armored Core games is similarly interesting and fun, IMO.

[Licorice]

Oh, come on. Don't be so reductionist. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

If it was just about numbers going up, then there would be a whole metric shit-ton of games that are not RPGs that we would all have to start calling an RPG.

I think he was initially being sarcastic and calling me out for being reductionist. You guys are making the same point AFAICT.

BTW I am reductionist, and proudly so. If numbers go up, it's an RPG.

I guess the other thing I'd add, but it's too difficult for my small brain to quantify, is the game needs to be geometrically or topographically complex i.e. maze like.

You find other things in RPGs too, especially e.g. CYOA things or lots of text to click through but those aren't necessary nor sufficient, whereas I'd say my "reductionist" criteria above are.

[vol.2]

I think he was initially being sarcastic and calling me out for being reductionist. You guys are making the same point AFAICT.

Really? hahaha. I didn't take that. But I guess I can be dense.

[Vanguard]

No, I really think the most useful definition for RPG is a game about making your character's numbers go up. Dialogue options, side quests, non linearity, NPC interactions, and multiple endings are all things you can find in all kinds of different genres, even ones that never had anything to do with tabletop roleplaying.

[Steamflogger Boss]

Good grief.

WTF is going on in this thread, lol.

Dark Souls is not a JRPG, it isn't close to Severance either but I assume that is trolling.

Tales of Phantasia and Tales of Destiny for PS1 are honestly also extremely bad for this given how useful magic is and how you'll want to be casting it non-stop in any serious situation. Thank goodness for Tales of Eternia and the later PS2 era games. People missing out on the best game in the series due to a lack of a localized release, Destiny Remake, is a crime against gamers.

I don't mind those games tbh, Eternia is better but I rather enjoyed Destiny. I am digging Phantasia via the translation patch as well. It's been awhile since I played Destiny but I assume it's slightly better than Phantasia in this area.

To quote what I said to Blinge on discord about Dark Souls as a jrpg:

Squire Grooktook — Today at 5:51 AM
My own feelings on "IS DARKSOULS A JRPG!?!?!!?"

The answer is a very technical yes, but as I was saying about "the average joe perspective", saying "jrpg" tends to imply certain things which Dark Souls is very much not. It's definitely a roleplaying game though, so I think it's more accurate to just call it an action rpg and leave at that. Anything else feels deceptive in one way or another

Dark Souls is in fact pretty close to the platonic ideal of a true "action rpg". I've talked about this before in the fromsoft thread but "RPG" and "Action" are usually diametrically opposed because one is about abstract simulation, and the other is about skill. But Fromsoft have cut their teeth on both (much like Falcom) and knew how to weave roleplaying mechanics into a skill-based action game in a way that both complimented eachother in genuinely meaningful ways, from the character progression to the world progression. So it's absolutely an action game and absolutely an rpg and absolutely great.

Pretty much the best game ever. The first one that is. Truly special.

My own preference is dungeon crawlers with little to no story, npc interaction etc. Recently I played Labyrinth of Touhou 2 and this is kind of my ideal RPG. Maybe you guys don't consider these RPGs, but to me that's what computer RPGs are all about -- optimizing or configuring your dude(s) to meet the challenges the game throws at you.

Why wouldn't anyone consider these rpgs? Dungeon crawlers are great.

[null1024]

Tales of Destiny's spell pause is kinda annoying, but even despite getting paused by INDIGNATION being cast repeatedly, I had a fairly good time in fights.
Eternia really is a lot more fun though. I should go start back that game -- was playing on PSP, but my save is long gone.

[Steamflogger Boss]

Yeah Eternia is one of my favorites in the entire series. Maybe at the top..

[vol.2]

No, I really think the most useful definition for RPG is a game about making your character's numbers go up. Dialogue options, side quests, non linearity, NPC interactions, and multiple endings are all things you can find in all kinds of different genres, even ones that never had anything to do with tabletop roleplaying.

I knew it!

I think you are ignoring the gestalt aspect of what makes an RPG. Making numbers go up don't make it an RPG; there are plenty of games that your numbers go up that aren't RPGs at all.

The thing that makes RPGs is being part of a group of games that has an RPG lineage. Those game that descended from the originals and then found their own voices and their little niches. Some of those things aren't even what was traditionally associated with an RPG, but they eventually came to help define a particular genre.

Anyway, that's my view of it.

[Licorice]

No, I really think the most useful definition for RPG is a game about making your character's numbers go up. Dialogue options, side quests, non linearity, NPC interactions, and multiple endings are all things you can find in all kinds of different genres, even ones that never had anything to do with tabletop roleplaying.

Ah OK. Cool we're on the same page here.

Making numbers go up don't make it an RPG; there are plenty of games that your numbers go up that aren't RPGs at all.

I'll probably just say "well akshually that's an RPG" but curios as to which ones you're thinking of.

[Vanguard]

I knew it!

I think you are ignoring the gestalt aspect of what makes an RPG. Making numbers go up don't make it an RPG; there are plenty of games that your numbers go up that aren't RPGs at all.

Sometimes. A lot of shmup players' goal is to make their score number go up and that doesn't make shmups RPGs. But if the number going up is experience points and when you get enough you level up and that makes a bunch of other numbers go up, that's an RPG 100%, end of discussion.

Basically your character's numbers need to make them better at whatever they do in the game. Usually that means fighting, but it could be picking locks for a rogue or something like that - it needs to fundamentally be a means rather than an end (even if this gets corrupted and the player ends up playing for the sake of making his dude as badass as possible). Growth should generally be gradual, the growth period should last for most of if not the entire duration of the game, and the numbers should generally not go down easily as they go up without either a catastrophic mistake or the player taking initiative to make them do so. The more the game focuses on growth in numbers and the more those numbers conform to the rules I've listed, the more of an RPG it is.

This definition is the most useful because you can hear "RPG" and instantly know you're dealing with some no-skill grindfest garbage. Whereas if you hear that a game is a distant descendant of tabletop gaming that found its own voice and its own little niche, that tells you precisely jack shit. Furthermore, my definition better matches how the word RPG is used in common practice and only a tiny portion of the games closely related to the RPG gestalt don't involve some kind of leveling up.

[Squire Grooktook]

It's definitely a roleplaying game

Does it have role playing elements aside from items and player stats? Like, for example, does it have a main story that you play through in the role of a character, completing a quest and driving the story as you go?

This is also an interesting topic.

Wizardry has none of the above, but IMO it is most definitely a computer role playing game.

To me video game RPG games (lol) branched off from tabletop RPGs 40 years ago and that's it. The acronym is no longer descriptive, just vestigal.

That's not to say there's no peeking over the fence. Video game RPGs are made with updated D&D rulesets all the time, after all, and every now and then you get a designer who says "you know, I want my game to feel more like the tabletop experience!".

Point still stands though.

This is actually a very interesting subject on its own. I actually wrote a little personal essay awhile back about the relationship between pen and paper rpg's, turn based video game rpg's, and action rpg's. To summarize the theme of the essay in a way that's relevant and responds to your point:

What video games inherited from tabletop rpg's was not "roleplaying" but simulation. You CANNOT have true "roleplaying" in a video game, because games are static and table top roleplaying is all about group storytelling. You can have simulation though, and that's the primal pollen that drifted from the world of pen and paper to the digital realm of video games.

Stats and skills (representing everything from strength of arms to strength of personality) and other related rpg mechanisms are all about creating a mechanical representation of a character and then SIMULATING how they will fare in a given situation via dice/cards/rng. The classic turn based dungeon crawl rpg is all about creating a party of dudes, deciding what they're good at, stocking up on resources, dumping them in the wild and rolling the dice to see how things work out for them. There's some lite strategy and decision making intrinsic in the concept (a type of "skill", arguably), but largely its about how good your protagonists are, not how good YOU are.

Thus, simulation is the one aspect of tabletop rpg's that is truly shared and preserved in the video game medium.

This is why most action rpg's tend to miss the point. Action game mechanics are largely about directly testing YOUR skills, RPG mechanics are largely about testing the skills of SOMEONE ELSE. Put them together, and you largely have a recipe for disaster because these mechanics are diametrically opposed and fucking hate eachother. It takes a developer who deeply understand both action and rpg's on a fundamental level to create a game with elements of both that synergizes rather than self destructs. Falcom and Fromsoft generally know how to do this.

Back to the original point, based on the above and as I see it, the thread of "simulation via stats and abstract representations of skills" is I think very much alive today in many games. While the term "roleplaying" might be vestigial by my definition (always was), that fundamental evolutionary and mechanical link to their common ancestor remains and is what truly defines a video game turn based rpg, as well as any other type of rpg including the rare action rpg that gets it right.

[Vanguard]

FromSoft games are good because how good you are matters 10x more than how good your character is. Oath and Origin are good because they control how good your character is by making it really easy to make him stronger if he's too weak and really tedious to make him stronger if he's already too strong. The way to make a good action RPG is to make the RPG side subservient to the action side. And indeed, in the best (video game) RPGs how good your character is should largely be a reflection of how good you are anyway.

[Squire Grooktook]

Fromsoft games are good because they find clever ways to make all the abstract, statistical elements of your character meaningfully interact with the moment to moment gameplay and represents their growth as an adventurer through gameplay.

Stamina/strength/weight-limit shit for example doesn't just make your old attack animation ping off a few more hitpoints (as they would in a bad arpg). It allows you to wear heavier armor which changes the way your blocking animation interacts with attacks or changes the animation for your dodge move and how many i-frames it gets, it allows you to run longer, it allows you to do longer combos or change your moveset by wielding unique weapons with unique movesets. Same is true for other stats. Every single one of them not only represents your character but actively influences your moveset and gives you wholly new mechanical options in a way that simply raising or lowering damage numbers never could.

Ys Oath/Origin uses them well because leveling is used as a clever way to encourage actively engaging with the combat instead of skipping it. If you excised the rpg elements from either of these games, you'd have no reason not to just run by every enemy straight to the boss. Sure, they could have just locked you in a room with the monsters (devil may cry / character action style), but that would impact the free exploratory element of the game. It's a good example of the age old statistical concept being used in a way to reinforce the action gameplay rather than hindering it.

I don't think any turn based rpg should be thought of as "skill-based", or at least only should be in the most indirect and loose of senses. It's fundamentally better to think about the genre in terms of simulation and throw the idea of skill to the wind...or at the very least think of it as secondary to the experience.

[vol.2]

This definition is the most useful because you can hear "RPG" and instantly know you're dealing with some no-skill grindfest garbage. Whereas if you hear that a game is a distant descendant of tabletop gaming that found its own voice and its own little niche, that tells you precisely jack shit. Furthermore, my definition better matches how the word RPG is used in common practice and only a tiny portion of the games closely related to the RPG gestalt don't involve some kind of leveling up.

My point is that you don't have to choose a single gaming mechanic to be the sole definition of the CRPG. Is someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to pick a single gaming mechanic to represent all RPGs from now until the end of time forever hold your peace?

I didn't think so. (I hope not)

So why in the hell are you insisting on it?

The "numbers going up" thing is not without merit. It's definitely the one mechanic that you can pick out of a big crowd in a whole bunch of games as an RPG-like aspect. However, that doesn't mean it's the only RPG-like aspect, or the only one that matters.

When you look at the groups of RPGs on various systems (let's just for the sake of argument look at Square and Atlus), you can clearly see that they have styles that have built their own personalities, and created their own RPG ecosystems. Each one of those companies has created a formula, which in turn created an identifiable set of mechanics.

[Vanguard]

Fromsoft games are good because they find clever ways to make all the abstract, statistical elements of your character meaningfully interact with the moment to moment gameplay and represents their growth as an adventurer through gameplay.

Stamina/strength/weight-limit shit for example doesn't just make your old attack animation ping off a few more hitpoints (as they would in a bad arpg). It allows you to wear heavier armor which changes the way your blocking animation interacts with attacks or how your dodge move works or how much super armor you get on attacks, it allows you to run longer, it allows you to do longer combos or change your moveset by wielding unique weapons. Same is true for other stats. Every single one of them not only represents your character but actively influences your moveset and options in a way that higher/lower damage numbers never could.

Ys Oath/Origin uses them well because leveling is used as a clever way to encourage actively engaging with the combat instead of skipping it. If you excised the rpg elements from either of these games, you'd have no reason not to just run by every enemy straight to the boss. Sure, they could have just locked you in a room with the monsters (devil may cry / character action style), but that would impact the free exploratory element of the game. It's a good example of the age old statistical concept being used in a way to reinforce the action gameplay rather than hindering it.

All of that stuff is good but the player's skill is still the king and the character's power is the servant and all three games would be massively worse if that weren't the case.

I don't think any turn based rpg should be thought of as "skill-based", or at least only should be in the most indirect and loose of senses. It's fundamentally better to think about the genre in terms of simulation and throw the idea of skill to the wind...or at the very least think of it as secondary to the experience.

You can definitely be good or bad at games like Nethack. If you don't like using the word skill for something that doesn't involve reflexes then you can substitute a different one, but there are some quality turn-based RPGs out there that are mostly if not entirely about mastery. Even high tier turn-based RPGs with middling battle systems like Demon King Chronicle and Black Souls still richly reward knowledge of what threats lie ahead and how to deal with them, and if you removed that I wouldn't like them nearly as much anymore.

I think The Hundred World Story is the closest thing there is to a fully simulationist RPG that I still like. Got any recommendations for that type of thing?

[Licorice]

I don't think any turn based rpg should be thought of as "skill-based", or at least only should be in the most indirect and loose of senses. It's fundamentally better to think about the genre in terms of simulation and throw the idea of skill to the wind...or at the very least think of it as secondary to the experience.

Oh I don't know.

I'm a programmer by trade, and recently we've been hiring and interviewing candidates. As is standard practice in the industry we ask problem solving questions of the nature "here's what the inputs to your program look like, this is what your program should do with them, and the result should be this output".

To me this is a test of skill.

Sure it's not a mechanical skill like it would be if they were expected to know the answer up front and just had to type it in within a given time limit, but that would be missing the point, and the time limit would be far too generous anyway.

Now that's exactly what happens if they've seen the question before.

You can get this same kind of test of non-mechanical skill from video games. But you run into a similar problem to the above in that when you beat the game once "you've seen the question before" and there's no longer anything to it. It becomes just risklessly going through the motions.

There's good ways and bad ways to fix this. One of my favorite games Civilization 4 fixes it by randomizing "the problem" i.e. the map and your opponents and their starting locations. This is the good way.

The other way is to throw dice rolls at it, to make it so after a few moves you never get the same game twice. This isn't necessarily bad, but it is when you make the outcome variance too high, at which point the game becomes a slot machine. Pull the lever and hope for the best.

For example, the first 3 Wizardry games were most definitely slot machines once you figured them out. In contrast, Labyrinth of Touhou had a good amount of variance, even with good strategy (party build, resource allocation), you had to react to the situation (boss fight) as it evolved.