Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

division of rpg: arpg and srpg

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 11:06:02 AM

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

More about : division rpg arpg srpg

Anonymous
June 23, 2005 12:56:37 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 1:19:28 PM

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
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 3:03:05 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 4:07:49 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 5:18:36 PM

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?
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 9:48:46 PM

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.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 10:04:45 PM

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
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 10:41:26 PM

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].
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 4:33:50 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 24, 2005 10:03:59 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 3:18:03 AM

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.
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 11:40:52 AM

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?
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:15:00 PM

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
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 11:39:45 AM

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.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 3:59:08 PM

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
Anonymous
July 21, 2005 5:22:49 PM

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.
!