RPG Irony

[Bostur]

The meaning of the term isn't necessarily identical with the name of the term. And language isn't logic.

A platform game doesn't need to have platforms. An adventure game is not a game about an adventure. And an RPG isn't necessarily defined by the presence or absence of roleplaying.


There seems to be two differing definitions of video game RPGs at the moment:

1. A game that offers the potential of roleplaying.
2. A game that reuses gameplay mechanics from pen and paper RPGs.


People who seek the first are looking for a roleplaying experience, people who seek the second are looking for a specific type of gameplay. And of course some like both of those combined.

 

[The Funslinger]

Your thread reminded me on this

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/

Warning: Pretentious.

On topic though, I only half agree, the thing is that you basically have to work around your boundraies and not rely on the game too much to roleplay.

I think roleplayers in MMOs are the most hardcore players on those games.

Not that I've clicked it, buuuut... pretentious, eh? Better use this:

OT: I like the Oblivion system. I don't think that a lot of people get that when games give you a few general options to choose from (predicting all the different choices would be impossible, and to demand that is self entitled to the max.) give you the gist of what your response is and leave the specifics to you. It's role playing, so it's letting you think of what you want to say. Imagination, chaps.

 

[Stew Coard]

I think games should give more opportunity to build you own identity, however it is hard with limited technology to give you so much freedom and a game like the elder scrolls gives you plenty of freedom in the gameplay aspect which is most important

 

[2fish]

snip.

More or less this.

However I have played a few d&D games and well let?s say the DM was stricter than oblivion with moving the plot. My team all wanted one person to be leader so none of them ever made a choice.

So I as a thief snuck out one night hired the monsters were supposed to kill and raided a dungeon with my hoard. I then set out to out evil the bad guy. Needless to say the game broke because of the DM's strict rules and my teams inability to do anything.

I would say I can RP a lot in games but I have to have the right game for the mood I am in. Oblivion is not good if I want to RP an assassin other than the brotherhood quests. One must compensate their RP goals based on what the game does well. I don't play a sports game to beat the hell out of people (other than deathrow or bloodbowl).

 

[KingHodor]

If you want dialogue options, Bioware and Obsidian games are pretty good for that. Bethesda games are not, but they do allow freedom in other areas.

Bioware's dialogue options in their older games weren't all that great, IMO, especially if you were trying to play an evil character.

In effect, your options kept boiling down to this:
Questgiver: "Please, save my kitty from the dungeon."
Neutral: "I'll save your kitty for 200 gold."
Good: "I'll save your kitty and I'm not asking for a reward."[because I know you'll give me a magic item or an XP reward that's worth way more than 200 gold]
Evil: "I'll fight my way through the dungeon just to murder your kitty."

While the Mass Effect/Dragon Age 2 dialogue system sometimes leads to frustrating misunderstands, the evil dialogue options actually sounded like something a "sane" (if somewhat short-tempered, greedy and/or amorally goal-oriented) individual would say rather than the ramblings of a sadistic sociopath.

 

[spartan231490]

Depends on what you mean by rp. You can't RP your conversation options in many RPGs, but you can RP how you play the game, and In my opinion, that's what I find more important as far as RPing is concerned.

 

[Littaly]

There are still technological barriers to overcome. More RP options would be nice, but you can't possible make a video game as infinitely free and complex as a pen and paper RPG. At least not yet ^^

That said, to me, a big part of the role playing in RPGs isn't what happens on the screen, but what happens in your mind. It definitely holds true for older, graphically less impressive RPGs, but to a certain extent, it's the same for the current gen ones. This is going to sound a little dorky, but a little imagination goes a long way to enhance the experience.

 

[Saltyk]

Technical limitations. There's no way they could ever allow you to say whateveer you want and actually have the characters respond to it. Imagine a player walking up to random NPC#2573-B and flirting with it or threatening it or asking for some sugar. There's no way the developer could anticipate that.

Personally, I never have any real issue with any of the RPGs I've played. I feel the options to create my character as I like and to choose basic dialog options is plenty. Bioware gives you a nice variety of options. Who could forget letting the demon have the kid in Dragon Age: Origins in exchange for sex? I had to do that just to see what would happen (nothing much).

 

[AndyFromMonday]

MMO's are best because they lack dialogue?

Actually, it has more to do with their ability to let you improvise your own dialogue and therefore allow you to really BE whatever character you want to be as opposed to being what character the developer thinks you want to be.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think it comes down to the imagination of the player.

I play sims for example and I make up shit about their personalities and story in my head without any concious effort. When I play Oblivion or Fallout 3 what I'm thinking about the dungeon/situation I'm in is what my character is thinking. I don't need extra dialogue and cutscenes.

I think games are good in that they are more immersive than books or TV in that YOU are the hero/heroine.

A lot of people just don't have the capability to be imaginative and so want everything laid out for them.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Actually, it has more to do with their ability to let you improvise your own dialogue and therefore allow you to really BE whatever character you want to be as opposed to being what character the developer thinks you want to be.

Yes they have chat support, but the RP praise can't go to the game because that only comes in with the community.

 

[Fishyash]

Your thread reminded me on this

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/

Warning: Pretentious.

On topic though, I only half agree, the thing is that you basically have to work around your boundraies and not rely on the game too much to roleplay.

I think roleplayers in MMOs are the most hardcore players on those games.

Not that I've clicked it, buuuut... pretentious, eh? Better use this:

OT: I like the Oblivion system. I don't think that a lot of people get that when games give you a few general options to choose from (predicting all the different choices would be impossible, and to demand that is self entitled to the max.) give you the gist of what your response is and leave the specifics to you. It's role playing, so it's letting you think of what you want to say. Imagination, chaps.

I think that the articles contain an unheathly amount of BOTH pretentiousness and condescension.

MMO's are best because they lack dialogue?

Actually, it has more to do with their ability to let you improvise your own dialogue and therefore allow you to really BE whatever character you want to be as opposed to being what character the developer thinks you want to be.

Don't forget the fact that you are ALSO interacting with other people, so you will not get a pre-programmed response when roleplaying with another person.

The only problem I guess is the fact that a computer will never really fufill the role of a game master as well as a person would.

 

[LilithSlave]

The problem with MMORPGs, is that the roleplaying you say exists in there, is only because users make it. You can do that in any online game, heck, you can do that in Second Life. And I keep using this as an example because I keep coming across people who mock people who play it because it's "not even a video game". If anything, MMORPGs are lagging far, far behind wRPGs in most regards, being restricted to one of the most boring staples of the RPG, leveling. I would personally call Chrono Cross a superior RPG to all MMORPGs, and it doesn't have any grinding whatsoever. And yet this is pretty much all MMORPGs have. MMORPGs missed the point. And the fact that users have to start roleplaying Guilds to even feel like they're playing an RPG, shows that.

It's also possible to play Oblivion online I have heard. And that means, you can invite people to your Blackthorne castle, throw loads of food on the table. And eat it.

I do like jRPGs more. Because I do love my Tales of game plot twists. You can always expect an interesting plot development out of a Tales of game. I also like Japanese design aesthetics, I'm a sucker for big eyes, small mouths, and round faces. And I like the general character interaction in jRPGs. jRPGs are never lonely.

But I will say one thing about wRPGs of the sandbox variety like Elder Scrolls. One thing that frustrates me in jRPGs and is one area in wRPGs that's superior. You can explore everywhere that you can go. And you can at least hold a half decent conversation with everyone. I may not like the voice acting in Oblivion, and I may think that the facial designs are some of the worst, in all of video gaming history(seriously, most PlayStation games had better facial designs, it's disgraceful), but I will say that the places don't limit you. You can go in almost every building, almost every NPC has more than one line to say, and you can interact in some way with almost every object.

Neither most jRPGs or MMORPGs have this. Tales of Vesperia is my most favourite game for the XBOX 360. And I like it a heck of a lot more than Oblivion. But I have to say, it feels sad when I can only explore a tiny portion of towns. I'm always longing for a bigger exploration. You know that the towns are bigger than the areas they allow you to explore. But still, in a jRPG, I always want just one more thing to do. And the towns always start off looking big, overwhelmingly so, but before too long you've explored the entire town and talked to everybody several times. And the amount of objects you can interact with is a lot less than Oblivion.

I know it's hard for developers to do. But I want to be able to talk to every citizen and explore nearly every building. In most jRPGs and MMORPGs, or rather, more RPGs period, the amount of doors you're allowed to go through, is very limited. And I mean, who hasn't wanted to walk through the entirely of Midgar and talk to 300,000+ citizens? I know I have.

I excuse it because I know it's hard and it's a tradeoff people often have to make. Tales of is good for plot twists. Tales has consistently good stories. And is like playing a fantasy anime, with it's anime characters, colourful areas, and funny, quirky, endearing character interaction. Tales of is good for making you feel like you like you have anime friends, like guessing how such a quite and humble beginnings will turn into such an epic adventure as Tales always does, and for having the best, not boring battle system that ever existed in an RPG. Because I know that Bandai Namco would rather spend that time thinking up a story or making amusing character interaction, which is what we all buy Tales of for, the characters. But I know it's lacking in some ways.

But back to MMORPGs. No, MMORPGs are not better at roleplaying. If anything, they're the least RPG of all the RPG genres. RPG != grinding. It does absolutely not. Neither does Dungeon Crawling make an RPG. What MMORPGs need, is the core mechanic not being based around HP, MP, and the like. But how you avatar interacts with the characters of the land. Giving you constant meaningful choices. Persona 4 may be pretty linear, but it tends to give you a fair amount of fairly meaningful choices. MMORPGs do not give you any meaningful choices.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Yes they have chat support, but the RP praise can't go to the game because that only comes in with the community.

The game is an essential part of the roleplaying process since it provides you with an avatar and a lore-rich environment through which you can immerse yourself.

 

[6SteW6]

What do you think of the fact that RPGs don't let you really RP that much. Even in games like Oblivion, you have a few lines to say to the NPCs, not "whatever" you want. MMORPG's are probably the closest we ever got to real RP.

Discuss.

Well I understand that gaming consoles don't run on magic or pixie blood and therefore have limitations. I understand the game can't think of every possible thing I may want to say in a game so to keep it short they generally give a few wildly varying responses that range from: 'Of course I will take your baby and deliver it to helmsfast' to 'Dude fuck you I am going to straight up devour this baby before your weeping eyes!' those are the good and evil responses respectively.

If you are unsatisfied with it I would recommend whipping out the old D&D book and have a jolly good weekend doing some extensive 'Rpging'

 

[Smooth Operator]

The game is an essential part of the roleplaying process since it provides you with an avatar and a lore-rich environment through which you can immerse yourself.

It is a constricting part to the predefined world as are dialogue options.
Now the question is do you want to make a community story (in which case you should really be looking at the top dog - pen and paper RPG's) or experience the developers story.

 

[trouble_gum]

MMO's are best because they lack dialogue?

Actually, it has more to do with their ability to let you improvise your own dialogue and therefore allow you to really BE whatever character you want to be as opposed to being what character the developer thinks you want to be.

And because MMORPGs are probably among the computer RPGs that -least- encourage Roleplaying; go there, speak to person with exclamation mark floating over them, kill X of Y to gain Z. Acquire objects, gain levels, grind grind grind. Most player-to-player interactions in most MMOs consist of requests to trade, group up, begging, dancing and

Even in MMORPGs like WoW were you're one of two opposing factions, so ostensibly you're doing this "For the Horde!" or whatever it is Alliance players use as a slogan; there's no particular need to be overly concerned with your factional alignment.

EVE's few roleplaying Alliances have it even harder. Even with Empyrean Age adding Factional Warfare to the mix, providing you with that potential for roleplaying catalyst; an enemy faction to contend with, there's VERY little reason to or purpose in roleplaying in EVE. Especially as Alliances can't join Factional Warfare, only corporations can (for those of us unfamiliar with EVE's player-created organisations; corps are groups of players, Alliances are groups of corporations.)

Roleplaying in MMOs is the ultimate in player-driven content; something that you do for the enjoyment of the activity itself, rather than for any concrete rewards. There aren't any concrete rewards for RP in EVE, at least (not anymore, anyway). I can't comment on other MMOs but I've never heard of any. It also has that all-important element vital for roleplaying; other people to interact with. It's all very well to have carefully thought about your Dunmer's past, the reason you ended up in prison, your personal motivations for your actions, but without the opportunity to show other people the character you created and see how your story meshes (or doesn't) with theirs it's just fluff. It can be entertaining, rewarding and even compelling fluff; but NPCs rarely care about these details unless there are very specific mechanical effects on gameplay from background traits.

Of course, all this depends strongly on what you consider roleplaying; it's a long-held trope that D&D, the essential model for all western computer RPGs consists of "Enter dungeon, find goblin, kill goblin, go through goblin's pockets for his spare change. Go to next room, repeat." In most published RPG campaigns, your goal as a group of players is go from being relatively minor, weak characters to being able to challenge and defeat the antagonist(s) du jour. Often by carving your way through their minions in various castles and caverns and stealing their armoured trousers. Even RPGs with pretensions about how much more sophisticated they are (hi, Vampire) have material like Diablerie: Britain, a published scenario for V:TM that has you enter a burial mound in Scotland in which there's an elder vampire and a magical sword.

The core mechanics of RPGs boil down to "Slay enemies, take enemies stuff, level up abilities. Repeat with bigger, harder enemies who have shinier stuff to steal." Story provides context to these actions, and most CRPGs have these bare bones down pretty pat. It's then about how compelling the story or world is and how much effort the designers have gone to in giving you the chance to have your character's actions impact both.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Well you typically play the role of an established character, so the role-playing aspect is still present. Whether you would want the decisions to be more directed to the player than the characters is another story.

I believe that if you wanted to create your own adventure or role within an established world you would play an MMORPG or games that are grounded on decision making like Mass Effect.

 

[LilithSlave]

Roleplaying in MMOs is the ultimate in player-driven content

Indeed. And while it shows that it's the players that truly make and break an online sandbox.

It shows the severe limitations of the game genre and how stagnant it is. MMORPGs are just as stagnant as jRPGs. Almost no creator is doing anything with the genre. Guild Wars 2 promises a little bit in terms of "weighty" choices, but it's pretty stagnant as an industry. Tera Online, for instance, boasts almost nothing other than a better combat system. And what's the point of playing a RPG for the fighting?

For them to be truly good RPGs, they need roleplaying to start being a part of the game mechanic. The primary game mechanic is what it should be, but MMORPGs don't even have it as a part of the game mechanic.

What MMORPGs need desperately, is dynamics, and consequences for your actions. Downleveling if you die in battle does not count as consequence. Because you level in an MMORPG holds almost no weight to begin with. It only decided which monsters you can fight and therefor which areas you can explore easily. Or, you know, if you're really lucky, you're playing an MMORPG where level can also mean how well you can create products for other users. Judging your weight in the economy rather than just what you can kill.

 

[2xDouble]

Roleplaying in MMOs is the ultimate in player-driven content

Indeed. And while it shows that it's the players that truly make and break an online sandbox.

It shows the severe limitations of the game genre and how stagnant it is. MMORPGs are just as stagnant as jRPGs. Almost no creator is doing anything with the genre. Guild Wars 2 promises a little bit in terms of "weighty" choices, but it's pretty stagnant as an industry. Tera Online, for instance, boasts almost nothing other than a better combat system. And what's the point of playing a RPG for the fighting?

For them to be truly good RPGs, they need roleplaying to start being a part of the game mechanic. The primary game mechanic is what it should be, but MMORPGs don't even have is as a part of the game mechanic.

The problem is giving players total freedom like that as a game mechanic usually makes shitty games. Second Life, for example.