division of rpg: arpg and srpg

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I used to say I liked RPGs, but in the last few years, the games that
have been labeled 'RPGs' are very different than what used to be RPGs
and are more similar to Quake than to Ultima 3 or 7 for that matters.
I believe the genre should be divided because as it is now, there is a
whole world of difference between an action RPG and I guess we can call
it more 'strategic' (or tactical?) RPG.
Action RPGs: Diablo, Divine Divinity, etc.
Tactical RPG: Wizardry 7&8, Gladius (xbox), Final Fantasies.

There is a world of difference between these two
16 answers Last reply
More about division arpg srpg
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    What about morrowind, gothic, etc.?

    I think the division you speak of is already de facto being used and
    it's even split out more.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Morrowind, Gothic... Action RPGs
    Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment... Tactical

    Basically, games where your twitch reactions make a difference in
    combat vs. those where it doesn't
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    wolfing wrote:
    > Morrowind, Gothic... Action RPGs
    > Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment... Tactical
    >
    > Basically, games where your twitch reactions make a difference in
    > combat vs. those where it doesn't

    Even in Baldur's Gate you have "action" in the sense that the combats
    play out in real-time, assuming you don't use the "pause at end of
    turn" auto-pause function.

    I'm not sure we need further breakdowns in the genre. It's to the point
    now where games are no longer following a specific formula that is
    easily classified into pretty little boxes, all in a row. You really
    just have to judge each game on it's own and decide how much "twitch"
    is involved. To me Morrowind doesn't require much "twitch", not
    compared to say Divine Divinity or Diablo 2.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    I agree, but that's not the point. You can certainly define what games
    are 'twitch' based and which ones are 'pause and select options for
    your party'. That simple difference makes a whole world of difference
    in how games are played.
    All action RPGs I've played have given me the same feeling of 'bleh',
    while more strategic RPGs feel very differently, almost like they're
    different genres.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    wolfing wrote:
    > I agree, but that's not the point. You can certainly define what games
    > are 'twitch' based and which ones are 'pause and select options for
    > your party'. That simple difference makes a whole world of difference
    > in how games are played.
    > All action RPGs I've played have given me the same feeling of 'bleh',
    > while more strategic RPGs feel very differently, almost like they're
    > different genres.

    One problem is that you are applying subjective judgements here. For
    instance, being able to pause doesn't make a game "tactical" or
    "strategic". It quite simply makes it "turn based". An RTS game like
    Age of Empires doesn't let you pause, and yet it's way more strategic
    than any RPG I've ever played.

    So you have turn based vs continuous action. But many games allow you
    to operate in either mode. So how do you classify them? Not only that,
    but some games operate (optionally) in one mode for single player, but
    force continuous action for multi-player. In that case is single player
    vs multi-player mode for the exact same game count as a different
    genre?

    Conversely, if simply being turn based is what defines an RPG, then is
    a game like Toontown Online an RPG? What about Pokemon?
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On 23 Jun 2005 07:06:02 -0700, "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >I used to say I liked RPGs, but in the last few years, the games that
    >have been labeled 'RPGs' are very different than what used to be RPGs
    >and are more similar to Quake than to Ultima 3 or 7 for that matters.

    The problem is that the entire concept of what an RPG is is pretty
    darn vague to begin with. The very name - Role Playing Game - simply
    indicates that its a game where you play a role. That describes justs
    about every game ever made, other that maybe some puzzle and strategy
    games (and not even all of them, at that.)

    Because RPG doesn't actually have any meaning by itself, its come to
    mean 'games with stats and skills'. Even then, you wind up bleeding
    into tons of games that aren't particularly RPGs in the traditional
    sense.

    Ultimately, I don't think it really think it matters what you try to
    define RPG as. Its just such a vague concept to start with, its
    always going to bleed into everthing else.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Knight37 wrote:
    > really just have to judge each game on it's own and decide how much
    > "twitch" is involved. To me Morrowind doesn't require much "twitch",
    > not compared to say Divine Divinity or Diablo 2.

    DD and D2 aren't really as twitchy as most people think they are, either.
    Otherwise an old uncoordinated bastard like me wouldn't have a prayer
    playing them and yet I manage to do OK.

    --
    chainbreaker
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1119535562.649572.103180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > I used to say I liked RPGs, but in the last few years, the games that
    > have been labeled 'RPGs' are very different than what used to be RPGs
    > and are more similar to Quake than to Ultima 3 or 7 for that matters.
    > I believe the genre should be divided because as it is now, there is a
    > whole world of difference between an action RPG and I guess we can call
    > it more 'strategic' (or tactical?) RPG.
    > Action RPGs: Diablo, Divine Divinity, etc.
    > Tactical RPG: Wizardry 7&8, Gladius (xbox), Final Fantasies.

    I might agree with making more of a distinction, but I think your
    distinction isn't quite correct. I'd like A-RPG, S-RPG, and T-RPG.

    Note that to me one of the things that makes an RPG an RPG is an attempt to
    provide a story or world, so that should be assumed in all of these.

    A-RPG: action RPG. Basically, for the most part it's an RPG that focuses on
    action and fast-paced combat and less on story and tactics.

    T-RPG: tactical RPG. The focus is still on combat, but it's on tactical
    combat. Could be the same as squad-based strategy games if they have a
    continuing story.

    S-RPG: story RPG. The focus is on the story, and while there is combat and
    action it takes a clear secondary position to progressing through the story.
    These would tend towards linear games but need not be.

    Examples of A-RPG: Diable, Divine Divinity, the PS2 X-Men RPG, etc
    Examples of T-RPG: Wizardry 8, Icewind Dale (?), maybe X-Comm.
    Examples of S-RPG: KOTOR, Final Fantasies, Baldur's Gate, Suikoden III
    (PS2), Shadow Hearts (PS2).

    You seem to have made your distinctions based on what is useful for you,
    forgetting that others have different interests [grin].
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "chainbreaker" <noone@nowhere.com> once tried to test me with:

    > DD and D2 aren't really as twitchy as most people think they are,
    > either. Otherwise an old uncoordinated bastard like me wouldn't have a
    > prayer playing them and yet I manage to do OK.

    They're not as twitchy as Doom but they're a bit twitchier than Fallout. Or
    even Baldur's Gate. You have to be able to move the mouse pretty precisely
    to maintain distance with certain character builds, and of course target
    enemies.

    --

    Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

    Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    but you keep talking like I'm saying a twitch game is not RPG, I'm not
    saying that a game is RPG or not if it's twitched based. They are both
    RPGs that's not the point. I'm just saying, *within* the RPG genre
    there could be a further division of 'Action' RPGs and nonaction RPGs,
    as the two types play and feel wildly differently.
    Same applies to strategy games (and is indeed divided already), in your
    example, Age of Empires is an action or Real Time Strategy game (RTS),
    as opposed to turn based strategy games like Heroes of Might and Magic.
    They are both strategy games, but the similarity ends there.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On 23 Jun 2005 07:06:02 -0700, "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >Action RPGs: Diablo, Divine Divinity, etc.
    >Tactical RPG: Wizardry 7&8, Gladius (xbox), Final Fantasies.
    >

    You need more than a title in 3 years to have genres, or sub-genres.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    well I could go on mentioning more titles in each category, what's your
    point?
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    wolfing wrote:
    > I used to say I liked RPGs, but in the last few years, the games that
    > have been labeled 'RPGs' are very different than what used to be RPGs
    > and are more similar to Quake than to Ultima 3 or 7 for that matters.
    > I believe the genre should be divided because as it is now, there is a
    > whole world of difference between an action RPG and I guess we can call
    > it more 'strategic' (or tactical?) RPG.
    > Action RPGs: Diablo, Divine Divinity, etc.
    > Tactical RPG: Wizardry 7&8, Gladius (xbox), Final Fantasies.

    I saw the following story this morning and immediately remembered this
    thread. See the 'defining the genre' section:

    http://pc.ign.com/articles/633/633762p1.html

    Basically, based on game designer Ron Edwards's 'GNS Theory' about
    role-playing games, the author categorizes CRPGs as follows:

    - Action (Diablo, Dungeon Siege)
    - Story (KOTOR)
    - Environment (Morrowind)

    With the typical caveat that all games have some amount of all three
    categories, but most focus more on one than the other two. The overall
    article is pretty good.

    Also, I googled Ron Edwards and found a Wikipedia entry on his GNS
    Theory:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    I read the article, and I still think it's missing the strategic RPG.
    I guess the author kind of implied that a story based RPG is strategic
    for some reason, which is wrong. He separated the types of RPG in what
    their emphasys is. Action, story or open world. I think he mixed two
    categorizations:
    - A game can be story or open world. In story based, your character is
    following a story that has been laid up for him. The game kinda leads
    him into where he/she should be at each time with a story revolving
    around him/her. In Open world games, there could or could not be a
    story, but this is normally secondary. In a way, the character makes
    his own story and could completely ignore the ' background' storyline.
    I dig this categorization
    - A game can be action based or strategy based. Either you click fast
    or react quickly to situations in real time (we 'act' for the
    character), or you have time to prepare for a fight, and give orders
    and set tactics in 'rounds' (you 'think' for the character). This is
    another categorization that for some reason got mixed with the first
    one in the article and removing the strategy part.
    In a way, the author said something like "numbers can be categorized as
    'even', 'odd' and 'negative'" . He mixed two different categorizations
    and removing a part of one of the categorizations in the mix.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Josh Mayfield" <ultibloo-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >wolfing wrote:
    >> I used to say I liked RPGs, but in the last few years, the games that
    >> have been labeled 'RPGs' are very different than what used to be RPGs
    >> and are more similar to Quake than to Ultima 3 or 7 for that matters.
    >> I believe the genre should be divided because as it is now, there is a
    >> whole world of difference between an action RPG and I guess we can call
    >> it more 'strategic' (or tactical?) RPG.
    >> Action RPGs: Diablo, Divine Divinity, etc.
    >> Tactical RPG: Wizardry 7&8, Gladius (xbox), Final Fantasies.
    >
    >I saw the following story this morning and immediately remembered this
    >thread. See the 'defining the genre' section:
    >
    >http://pc.ign.com/articles/633/633762p1.html
    >
    >Basically, based on game designer Ron Edwards's 'GNS Theory' about
    >role-playing games, the author categorizes CRPGs as follows:
    >
    >- Action (Diablo, Dungeon Siege)
    >- Story (KOTOR)
    >- Environment (Morrowind)
    >
    >With the typical caveat that all games have some amount of all three
    >categories, but most focus more on one than the other two. The overall
    >article is pretty good.

    Why not include Strategy CRPGs like Silent Storm, Fallout Tactics and
    Jagged Alliance 2?

    >Also, I googled Ron Edwards and found a Wikipedia entry on his GNS
    >Theory:
    >
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >I read the article, and I still think it's missing the strategic RPG.
    >I guess the author kind of implied that a story based RPG is strategic
    >for some reason, which is wrong. He separated the types of RPG in what
    >their emphasys is. Action, story or open world. I think he mixed two
    >categorizations:
    > - A game can be story or open world. In story based, your character is
    >following a story that has been laid up for him. The game kinda leads
    >him into where he/she should be at each time with a story revolving
    >around him/her. In Open world games, there could or could not be a
    >story, but this is normally secondary. In a way, the character makes
    >his own story and could completely ignore the ' background' storyline.
    >I dig this categorization
    > - A game can be action based or strategy based. Either you click fast
    >or react quickly to situations in real time (we 'act' for the
    >character), or you have time to prepare for a fight, and give orders
    >and set tactics in 'rounds' (you 'think' for the character). This is
    >another categorization that for some reason got mixed with the first
    >one in the article and removing the strategy part.
    >In a way, the author said something like "numbers can be categorized as
    >'even', 'odd' and 'negative'" . He mixed two different categorizations
    >and removing a part of one of the categorizations in the mix.

    The categories should be action, strategy, story and emergent. Morrowind
    is action emergent with some story. Betrayal at Krodnor is strategy
    story. Dungeon Siege is action story.
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Games RPG Video Games