Dark Souls isn't an RPG

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I never said you have to "act out" a bluff as part of a bluff.

Doing and saying are 2 different things. You can't just say "my character says a funny one-liner" after a kill, you actually have to come up with the one-liner yourself, that's part of role-playing and how a person's speech skill comes into play. Same thing with bluffing.

Your bluff checks are still failing. You can always stop, you know.

Nice job quoting me out of context, you're soon on your way to becoming the next Michael Moore.

Dark Souls is probably one of the purest RPGs I ever played. You get to choose your own character, there is zero background story, the game itself actually considers you irrelevant and you have to progress not only through its legion of challenges on your own merit but also your understanding of the events that took place and your role in it.

You pick a role in a game you have to figure out entirely on your own. I don't know how much more 'RPG' it can get.

Having your character have "character" is important to role-playing. Dark Souls is just a dungeon crawler, it's exactly like DnD except with the role-playing removed.

 

[DoPo]

Nice job quoting me out of context, you're soon on your way to becoming the next Michael Moore.

Dark Souls is probably one of the purest RPGs I ever played. You get to choose your own character, there is zero background story, the game itself actually considers you irrelevant and you have to progress not only through its legion of challenges on your own merit but also your understanding of the events that took place and your role in it.

You pick a role in a game you have to figure out entirely on your own. I don't know how much more 'RPG' it can get.

Having your character have "character" is important to role-playing. Dark Souls is just a dungeon crawler, it's exactly like DnD except with the role-playing removed.

So when you said that people need to come up with the lines they would be bluffing with, in context you were saying something different?

I think at this point your DC for the bluffs is just "N/A" as nobody would care to compute it. Not that it even matters that much, as nobody would be able to reach it either.

 

[DoPo]

So when you said that people need to come up with the lines they would be bluffing with, in context you were saying something different?

I never said you have to "act out" a bluff as part of a bluff. I'm saying that how you go about making a bluff is important. If you wanna say make a lie about the king making a new law/decree, and you first lie about being some kind of officer of the kingdom, making that bluff check about fake law/decree will have a better chance of passing. The way you lead into the main lie you are going for greatly impacts your success in bluffing, which has everything to with your own personal skill.

Yet you did say that players have to use their own skill in PnP RPGs for converstaions. And I quote:

[...] player skill is indeed involved in live-action RPGs and those existed before tabletop RPGs. Player skill is also involved in tabletop RPGs to how your character talks and converses among player characters and NPCs;

Then when I said that it is not true, your response was

I know there's a diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, etc. skills. But each player's speech ability does come into play even with those kind of skills. To properly bluff, you need to make a series of semi-believable lies that lead into a rather unbelievable lie instead of just coming out with that unbelievable lie.

Then later came the quote I had before where you literally said players must come up with the lines they want to bluff with. Only in the last few posts after you were repeatedly called out on that being bullshit, did you turn around and started saying something different entirely (also, not exactly true, but no need to go down that line). Thus I must call you out on your bullshit again, for no, you did actually say that players have to act out the lies. You said so and kept maintaining it.

Your attempts to lie AGAIN are pitiful and tragic.

 

[Spearmaster]

I cant invent a character in Dark Souls. I make a combat build, more like building a robot for which I use to kill monsters because no matter what you build the outcome is always the same, kill monsters>kill boss>repeat...end. Dark souls only lets you role play at 2 points that I can tell, choosing a covenant and picking which of the 2 endings you want and those seem to be more player decisions than that of what your character would decide, Mainly because they have no brain or personality, because they are robots programed with stats and spells and dressed up with items, armor and weapons.

Nothing stops you from inventing a character but yourself. Or do you only consider it roleplaying if others see you do it? Even then you still have PVP to fall back upon.

Spoiler

So what role playing options does Dark Souls provide the player to reflect this? Having to make up all the role playing in my head doesn't even work when the game does nothing but say "whatever kill the next boss". It has nothing to do with others seeing it because what are your options with other players...kill them or help them, these aren't character options they are player options used to yield rewards. If you say you can make them character options through role playing then where does the game support or even acknowledge this? Honestly where does the game acknowledge anything you do?

Letting the player create and role play their character so that the game will reflect their actions/decisions in a meaningful way for starters (the more the better). A character that actually has "character" which is reflected in the game. Role Playing options.

I'll give you that you have little choices that actually influence the game apart from its ending. However i disagree that a character has to be prewritten/have dialog for you to be able to roleplay him, in fact that only serves to constrict your role and limits roleplaying.

You can role play in any game all you want but if the game doesn't have any options that reflect that role playing how can it be called a role playing game? I can pick my hats and weapons in Team Fortress 2 and role play accordingly but it doesn't become a role playing game because it has no game options to support it.

These are limited by a games story/environment/game play but should be able to exist within any RPG story/environment/game play, If the game is to limited to rationally include things like these then it shouldn't be calling its self an RPG.

What

I'm just acknowledging that a games role playing elements can be restricted by the game play type and by the narrative of the story but if a game developer feels it has to remove all role playing options for those reasons it cant still call it an RPG. There is no reason Dark Souls couldn't have had some role playing options within the game. Especially with all the character build options but those options have no effect other than in combat. Play the game with 2 different character with different builds and role play ideas in mind and whats difference throughout the game?

 

[Spearmaster]

Dark Souls is probably one of the purest RPGs I ever played. You get to choose your own character, there is zero background story, the game itself actually considers you irrelevant and you have to progress not only through its legion of challenges on your own merit but also your understanding of the events that took place and your role in it.

You pick a role in a game you have to figure out entirely on your own. I don't know how much more 'RPG' it can get.

But you only have one role in the game, no matter what you choose your role never changes.

 

[Bombiz]

Traditions many times don't make much sense, they get ingrained into society for really no reason other than "that's just the way it's always been done."

I think i found something out in this thread. the term "RPG" needs to be reworked. honestly. We ahouldn't be having this much of a debate around this topic. I mean if people need to describe a game as a "Purer RPG" then maybe it's time to find a new word or at least rethink the current one.

 

[porous_shield]

Dark Souls is probably one of the purest RPGs I ever played. You get to choose your own character, there is zero background story, the game itself actually considers you irrelevant and you have to progress not only through its legion of challenges on your own merit but also your understanding of the events that took place and your role in it.

You pick a role in a game you have to figure out entirely on your own. I don't know how much more 'RPG' it can get.

There is background story. There is plenty of flavour text around as well as interacting with the characters. The game just doesn't shove it in your face like many other games do.

 

[Qvar]

There is background story. There is plenty of flavour text around as well as interacting with the characters. The game just doesn't shove it in your face like many other games do.

He's talking about the background story of your character, and he's right.

 

[Savagezion]

What type of game is this?
*precise genre*

"Erm, what does this one do?"

Given the wide variety of games out there, you would need an equally large amount of genres to capture them in [footnote]also you'd probably want more as the variations don't lend themselves well to getting in a tight definition, thus a "smaller" more focused genre tags would be better suited for describing games. The tradeoff is, of course, that you may need half a dozen tags per game at least[/footnote], so I guess the above is going to be a more frequent response.

I like the idea of multi genres. Like 'Adventure FPS' and such.

Well, nearly all current games are classified with at least two genres - CoD is different to ArmA, for example and their descriptions differ - one is a modern military shooter (or other descriptors like "spunkgargleweewee") while the other is a....well, frankly I'm not sure myself as I'm not really familiar, but I think I've seen the words "simulation" and "realistic" associated with it, so let's call it a "realistic simulation shooter". The two already differ. And as I said, that's the case with nearly all games - we have action adventures, action RPG, real-time/turn based strategy and so on. It's inevitable considering games are constantly evolving, expanding, and changing. And that is a big part of the problem classifying them - you can draw arbitrary lines to separate them and yet they can and do step over those lines then even go into uncharted regions for extra complexity. And the uncharted regions may already contain some of the other games that exist already, but it wasn't a big enough thing to label. Something that is still going to be present if the classification system is overhauled.

Well, modern military shooter seems especially vague for a genre. It only describes the setting, not the mechanics at all. TPS? FPS? spec ops the line is technically a modern military shooter. Like it or not, a genre system of some kind will be used. The current one sucks and is way too vague in many areas.

I do believe that very soon RPG will either be phased out entirely, or get a more specific defintiion and/or name.

To be honest - there pretty much are no RPGs. No "pure" ones anyway - it's sort of impossible to say "this game is an RPG" and just that - partly because of the above phenomena where games rea already multigenre, and partly because of what this thread shows - RPG is too much of a nebulous and unclear term.

I agree. Which is why the genre system needs reworked because people will continuously call things RPGs until eventually every game will be referred to as an RPG which will make people stop using the term altogether. However, "RPG gameplay" isn't being lumped into another genre but being divvied up amongst the entire industry. About 10 well known and different mechanics going 10 different directions all at once. Slap a label on that mechanic and it gets representation on describing the game to the consumer.

If you have ever tried to define Mirror's Edge to someone in real life, it is very apparent the genre system in place is balls. But if we look at the GUI, it is a FPS GUI. It mostly uses melee combat though, messing up the whole "shooter" part even though you actually see shooter aspect from the outside in.Clear as mud?

Actually, Mirror's Edge is really easy to explain in few short words - it is a first person free runner.

Which is basically what I said with the 'VRC' stuff, only you use free runner, I used calisthenics. However, I was trying to think of a new name for plaformers with calisthenics which is why I didn't like the name. I see free running as still platforming. Both make gameplay that plays out like obstacle courses you you can easily fall to your death in often and you have to run and jump through the obstacles having enemies occasionally show up for additional challenge to the course. Some include a diving mechanic or bosses but overall, it is the same thing. WOuld you be cool with free runner being the name of plaformers now? I would be cool with that. I would also be cool with Adventure taking the platformer spot and Adventure be renamed Mystery.

If you say First Person as a genre, already many don't know what you are saying if they haven't played CoD(casuals). Usually comparing the game to CoD though makes them understand as they are aware of CoD. SO right off the bat, many people's minds are now making a direct comparison to CoD or at least a shooter. Now, from here, as you begin to describe the game, here is what your description probably sounds like to them:

You drop your gun in CoD, take off running, and try not to get shot trying to jump over things. Plus, you're on a map where you can fall to your death easy. That's what Mirror's Edge sounds like from the outside often. LOL and that game sounds stupid and horrible. But you get special abilities is the difference. One ability is often seen in racing games. Merely not hitting things makes you accelerate to much higher speeds. Most come from platformers though allowing you special actions on special surfaces. If you have played Zelda, Tomb Raider, or Darksiders, you'll recognize it. Those games use it mostly for climbing, where as Mirror's Edge uses it for climbing and running momentum for wall runs and backflips. Plus you still have melee combat available.

Anyways maybe first person camera needs it's own name.

Incidentally it has - as I mentioned, it's "first person".

As you know from that very line you are quoting, I am aware. But whatever, I don't care the name. Just playing around with the VR stuff. I have an idea I use, and was throwing it out there is all. Sue me.

Really, a lot of games fall under that catagory now days. But today's media influences future media. A system like that will seem crazy to casuals because they are mostly covered with a story premise in the film industry. Having a 20-30 genres may seem overly complex from the the outside in. However, it will have a 6-8 genre key.The first 2-3 letters will be the most important for describing the game. It could be a VR - ShRPG. That looks crazy but the VR is enough for most people to know if they want to play it.

Again - I do not see this working. Who decides what the biggest aspect of the games is? If we are breaking the genres up into many smaller ones, there may as well be many that would pre prominent. Also, considering it's unlikely for there to be a unified classification, since there is no central "authority", we can quickly see that the genres can differ and differ a lot accross people who describe them. One person may apply one set of genres to a game, another may apply other set of genres. There could very well be both correct, but where do you get the total number of genres? Or going further, the two people above may call one genre by different names, or one may have one name for two of the genres of the other person. And so on.

Who decides the first letters is probably the game makers. What are they billing it as? RPG should just no longer be allowed as front billing. RPGs today either use turn-based, FPS, H/S, or TPS. They will all use those models if they have combat in them. I don't want someone to tell me a game is an RPG because today, that tells me nothing of the game. It could be a FPS, H/S, etc. I would rather just hear the combat model. That tells me something about the game. If it has no combat, it is probably a Simulation mechanic at the helm; could be economic, could be dialogue paths. I want to know what that is. Many good RPGs try to use both. An engine to make a simulated world with a good combat engine. The two mechanics also compete for resources in development.

You can still use the term RPG and consider some games RPGs and some not, but it can no longer be "primarily an RPG" as too many different types of those exist now. Instead, just go the other way. Nothing can be considered primarily an RPG, its too big. The term RPG should work as a tag rather than a genre. Someone always posts "looking for RPGs" and automatically, "what kind? what do you play? what do you like? etc." Someone could recognize that they like one type of RPG and not another and both are heavy RPGs but they wont count one and then people make youtube videos, and people die. It's horrible.

Ultimately, though the person describing the game picks the first 3 letters. I think it needs standardized. Let's use the metric system this time.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Yet you did say that players have to use their own skill in PnP RPGs for converstaions. And I quote:

[...] player skill is indeed involved in live-action RPGs and those existed before tabletop RPGs. Player skill is also involved in tabletop RPGs to how your character talks and converses among player characters and NPCs;

Then when I said that it is not true, your response was

I know there's a diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, etc. skills. But each player's speech ability does come into play even with those kind of skills. To properly bluff, you need to make a series of semi-believable lies that lead into a rather unbelievable lie instead of just coming out with that unbelievable lie.

Then later came the quote I had before where you literally said players must come up with the lines they want to bluff with. Only in the last few posts after you were repeatedly called out on that being bullshit, did you turn around and started saying something different entirely (also, not exactly true, but no need to go down that line). Thus I must call you out on your bullshit again, for no, you did actually say that players have to act out the lies. You said so and kept maintaining it.

Your attempts to lie AGAIN are pitiful and tragic.

How is this...

I know there's a diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, etc. skills. But each player's speech ability does come into play even with those kind of skills. To properly bluff, you need to make a series of semi-believable lies that lead into a rather unbelievable lie instead of just coming out with that unbelievable lie.

any different from this...?

I never said you have to "act out" a bluff as part of a bluff. I'm saying that how you go about making a bluff is important. If you wanna say make a lie about the king making a new law/decree, and you first lie about being some kind of officer of the kingdom, making that bluff check about fake law/decree will have a better chance of passing. The way you lead into the main lie you are going for greatly impacts your success in bluffing, which has everything to with your own personal skill.

I never once said you have to "act out" your bluffs. Player skill does come to play in how you go about bluffing like the basic example I listed and things are usually more complicated than that. When did I ever turn around and start saying something different? From those quotes, I'm just saying the same thing over and over again because you're not understanding what I'm saying.