Arr Pee Gee

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Arr Pee Gee

What's another word for "RPG"?

Read Full Article

Torchlight, like Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Loki and so on already had a nice name before everyone started calling them action-RPGs.

Hack'n'slash games. Devil May Cry 3 and Diablo 2 are different only because Diablo 2 has more characters, possible combinations of skills and you gather equipment, not only souls/points to buy new skills and upgrade abilities.

Abedeus:
Torchlight, like Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Loki and so on already had a nice name before everyone started calling them action-RPGs.

Hack'n'slash games. Devil May Cry 3 and Diablo 2 are different only because Diablo 2 has more characters, possible combinations of skills and you gather equipment, not only souls/points to buy new skills and upgrade abilities.

I would actually go as far as to say none of those are really RPGs at all... the only reason they're called that is because they have heavy fantasy elements and an upgrade system... but in that case, you could call Dead Space an RPG.

ProfessorLayton:

Abedeus:
Torchlight, like Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Loki and so on already had a nice name before everyone started calling them action-RPGs.

Hack'n'slash games. Devil May Cry 3 and Diablo 2 are different only because Diablo 2 has more characters, possible combinations of skills and you gather equipment, not only souls/points to buy new skills and upgrade abilities.

I would actually go as far as to say none of those are really RPGs at all... the only reason they're called that is because they have heavy fantasy elements and an upgrade system... but in that case, you could call Dead Space an RPG.

Diablo 2 has a crapload of itemization and skill customization, much moreso than just about any jRPG I've ever played. Nobody would doubt that, for instance, Final Fantasy 7 is an RPG, but Diablo 2 had more skills and a ridiculously large amount of pre-determined items (and then all the randomly generated ones.) If Diablo 2 isn't an RPG, then nothing else is.

I think RPG has now turned into such a genre that anyone can lay some form of claim to it. Its something that really has lost its identity after all these years

Enigmers:

ProfessorLayton:

Abedeus:
Torchlight, like Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Loki and so on already had a nice name before everyone started calling them action-RPGs.

Hack'n'slash games. Devil May Cry 3 and Diablo 2 are different only because Diablo 2 has more characters, possible combinations of skills and you gather equipment, not only souls/points to buy new skills and upgrade abilities.

I would actually go as far as to say none of those are really RPGs at all... the only reason they're called that is because they have heavy fantasy elements and an upgrade system... but in that case, you could call Dead Space an RPG.

Diablo 2 has a crapload of itemization and skill customization, much moreso than just about any jRPG I've ever played. Nobody would doubt that, for instance, Final Fantasy 7 is an RPG, but Diablo 2 had more skills and a ridiculously large amount of pre-determined items (and then all the randomly generated ones.) If Diablo 2 isn't an RPG, then nothing else is.

So nothing else is. Why are you judging this based on itemization? Fallout 2 has less items than Diablo 2 does, and yet Fallout 2 IS an RPG, in that it lets you define characters however you see fit. Also, it does a good job with letting you do what you want with the world, rather than having that shaped by the game. Customization does not an RPG make. It's what you can do with every aspect of the game. Such as in my favorite example of Fallout: You can slaughter whole towns, or leave them alive. Do certain quests and not others, and the town may be gone by the end of the game. There's one area where, if you're playing a brains type, you can actually introduce crop rotation. Diablo always felt like there was one solution to each problem: Kill X, Y, or Z. I didn't wanna kill, and I was forced to. A true RPG offers multiple solutions to each problem, and then, if the problem is far-reaching enough, allows you to contemplate the consequences.

Point being, everything in an RPG should be down to you, and not decided for you.

Edited because I had more to add.

I'd call Diablo, Torchlight and their ilk "dungeoneering" games. Diablo tends to have a story to tell (it's Blizzard, after all) but the nuts and bolts of these games aren't the story, it's the dungeon exploration, discovery of loot and clicking monsters to death.

Mass Effect, KotOR and Dragon Age are much more "storytelling" games. The story is the crux of the experience.

Just my $0.02 on it.

Interesting that almost all of those things appear in other genre games under the proviso of "bringing in RPG elements". Is this what RPG means? A collective noun for a vague list of game mechanics and tropes? Frankly, I wouldn't be unhappy with that. I'm struggling to think of another solution that's both accurate and practical. And it seems to fit with how we've been using it all along...

Break:
Interesting that almost all of those things appear in other genre games under the proviso of "bringing in RPG elements". Is this what RPG means? A collective noun for a vague list of game mechanics and tropes? Frankly, I wouldn't be unhappy with that. I'm struggling to think of another solution that's both accurate and practical. And it seems to fit with how we've been using it all along...

I think it's what it means now. Because games that hybridize with RPGs, such as Fallout 3 or Deus Ex succeed, the market thinks that every game should be hybridized with RPGs to include an upgrade system or choice mechanic or something. Hence, now all games have "RPG elements" and thus, the original term means somewhat less.

RPG is not a genre. A game can have RPG elements the same way it can sport strategy ones. It's merely a tool or a trope, if you will, for developers to add depth to the gameplay. The major element of the RPG is tangible advancement, which can involve any aspect of the player character, their environment and other denizens in the world. This is why games such as first-person shooters generally don't qualify since the player never grows or never gains "fake" experience that boosts their performance in combat.

TetsuoKaneda:

Break:
Interesting that almost all of those things appear in other genre games under the proviso of "bringing in RPG elements". Is this what RPG means? A collective noun for a vague list of game mechanics and tropes? Frankly, I wouldn't be unhappy with that. I'm struggling to think of another solution that's both accurate and practical. And it seems to fit with how we've been using it all along...

I think it's what it means now. Because games that hybridize with RPGs, such as Fallout 3 or Deus Ex succeed, the market thinks that every game should be hybridized with RPGs to include an upgrade system or choice mechanic or something. Hence, now all games have "RPG elements" and thus, the original term means somewhat less.

The important question, apparently, is how satisfying a conclusion this is. I mean, when the long-running issue has been "what comes under the category of RPG", how happy would a person be with an answer of "mechanics come under the category of RPG, not games"?

But then, I've always been opposed to how genres are used, most of the time. People often treat them as slots to fit games into, rather than descriptive tags to inform and recommend. Besides, these days, games are almost invariably more than just round pegs, and don't fit through the round holes quite like they used to.

I think the biggest problem is that there is no consensus about what an RPG is. A term is useless if it has no meaning, and that's exactly what's going on with "RPG". Some people claim it's all about roleplaying (gee, I wonder why?), while others claim it's all about leveling up. Some would call Fallout 3 a shooting game with a few RPG elements, others call it a first-person RPG. And so on.

Everyone has a very vague idea of what an RPG is (in many cases heavily influenced by game marketing and advertisement; if a game is marketed as an RPG, or containing RPG elements, it must be true, right?), but so far I haven't seen anyone come up with a satisfactory definition of the genre.

Other genres are more clearly defined. Everyone knows an FPS when they see one. An RTS is pretty obvious as well. A sports game? Easy. Racing? Sure. Platforming? It has a bit of crossover with what's commonly known as "action-adventure" (but "action-adventure" is another stupid genre name, if you ask me), but almost anyone will be able to give a good description of it. Beat 'em up and fighting games? As long as you're aware of the difference between the two, it's pretty obvious.

But RPGs? It's become so muddled by the video games industry and its fans that it is now pretty much meaningless.

definitely have to differenciate LevelUp games-LUG(like Borderlands and Xmen origins wolverine) from the term RPG.
Edit after reading previous comments: RPG should stand for games with characted defined gameplay and world that reacts to player, as in Deus ex, Fallout 3 or alpha protocol. shit other than equip has to advance.

Hurr Durr Derp:
Some would call Fallout 3 a shooting game with a few RPG elements, others call it a first-person RPG.

people are stupid by defalut for their whole life, you didn't notice?.

comment 15:shame on other games than sims is one of rare games with complete player control over characters(begins with creation).

Is it Ambrose Bierce time?

The best two categories for games are action game and strategy game. Not much use for pinning down what an RPG is but you can split RPGs into two groups.

1. Action games with a good excuse for being bad action games.
2. Strategy games with a good excuse for being sucky, broken strategy games.

These two definitions cover pretty much all video games that feel the need to call themselves RPGs.

TetsuoKaneda:

Enigmers:

ProfessorLayton:

Abedeus:
Torchlight, like Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Loki and so on already had a nice name before everyone started calling them action-RPGs.

Hack'n'slash games. Devil May Cry 3 and Diablo 2 are different only because Diablo 2 has more characters, possible combinations of skills and you gather equipment, not only souls/points to buy new skills and upgrade abilities.

I would actually go as far as to say none of those are really RPGs at all... the only reason they're called that is because they have heavy fantasy elements and an upgrade system... but in that case, you could call Dead Space an RPG.

Diablo 2 has a crapload of itemization and skill customization, much moreso than just about any jRPG I've ever played. Nobody would doubt that, for instance, Final Fantasy 7 is an RPG, but Diablo 2 had more skills and a ridiculously large amount of pre-determined items (and then all the randomly generated ones.) If Diablo 2 isn't an RPG, then nothing else is.

So nothing else is. Why are you judging this based on itemization? Fallout 2 has less items than Diablo 2 does, and yet Fallout 2 IS an RPG, in that it lets you define characters however you see fit. Also, it does a good job with letting you do what you want with the world, rather than having that shaped by the game. Customization does not an RPG make. It's what you can do with every aspect of the game. Such as in my favorite example of Fallout: You can slaughter whole towns, or leave them alive. Do certain quests and not others, and the town may be gone by the end of the game. There's one area where, if you're playing a brains type, you can actually introduce crop rotation. Diablo always felt like there was one solution to each problem: Kill X, Y, or Z. I didn't wanna kill, and I was forced to. A true RPG offers multiple solutions to each problem, and then, if the problem is far-reaching enough, allows you to contemplate the consequences.

Point being, everything in an RPG should be down to you, and not decided for you.

Edited because I had more to add.

Aye because YOU should be able to well, play a role. This is, make decisions like the character you have in mind would. Thats, for me, the one and only definition.
To choose between more strength or more intelligence each level, may support the possibility to let your character work in the game mechanics like he should, not that diablo supports the concept of an intelligent warrior that only fights if the situation and his own philosophy allow him to, but games like the mentioned fallout are a very good example. you can choose to take the brute road or the talking approach, you can rob everyone or give them the stuff they really need for free.
Shoving numbers is not what makes a RPG what it should be, hell there are some good RPGs out there which don't include any numbers or math at all! believe it or not.

How about CBSTRPESCG? Character-Building-Story-Telling-Role-Playing-Exploring-Strategy-Choice Game. Isn't that a mouthful. Then you just subtract letters/letter pairs as necessary.

Personally, I've always considered games with the RPG tag meant that the core of the gameplay was "character building" that was either unavoidable or would make the game otherwise impossible. Then a good RPG would also have a story, and a great one would have some choice involved. But that's me.

Wow, now I wish I had a beard...
CURSE YOU BEARDLESS CHIN!

More on topic, I'd call them probably the same thing as you.
Lame I know, but hey, what are you gonna do.

Uh...guys?

I hate to break it to you, but there already a term for Diablo 2, Torchlight, Titan Quest, and any other game that involves spelunking for massive amounts of loot: Roguelikes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_roguelike_video_games

I thought games like Diablo and that awful game, Titan's Quest, already had the label "Dungeon crawler". I think that's what it should say straight on the box. All that matters in those games is "powergrinding". What choices you do only changes how you kill monsters, or if you're going to survive or not. Death in those games is trivial anyway, all the way until harder difficulties. But the equation remains: total character strength + button mashing = win.
JRPGs share alot of these elements. But the biggest similarity is how your interaction and the story are two different parts of the same game. It might have been different with JRPGs in the past, but i guess with major cinematics being such a big deal the last decade, your actions, besides combat, don't matter at all.

I think Shamus dealt with how charactervoicing was destructive to the whole roleplaying experience before in another article, and i find this true. The cost is just too huge for it
to work. Although Bioware wants to make us think otherwise.

More Fun To Compute:
Is it Ambrose Bierce time?

The best two categories for games are action game and strategy game. Not much use for pinning down what an RPG is but you can split RPGs into two groups.

1. Action games with a good excuse for being bad action games.
2. Strategy games with a good excuse for being sucky, broken strategy games.

These two definitions cover pretty much all video games that feel the need to call themselves RPGs.

This. I've been both a tabletop gamer and a video gamer since the early 80s. Since then, I've seen the video game industry and media consistently apply the RPG label to wholly inappropriate titles, generally because of at least one of the following:

1) A levelling-up mechanic (even though most pen & paper systems outside of D&D/d20 haven't used it since the early 80s)
2) A sword & sorcery setting or premise.

The earliest console RPGs were linear as hell: You rarely had any choice in the character(s) you played, you definitely had no control over how they improved as they levelled up. Weapon, armour and spell choice were almost completely linear: e.g., you used the Iron Sword, until you could afford the Silver Sword, then the Gold, etc. (for some reason, soft precious metals made for better weapons than steel ones). The "story" was a linked linear series of fetch quests, rarely giving you the opportunity to choose which order you would engage the quests in or how you'd pursue them. Mega Man was less linear in that regard.

The term was poorly applied from the beginning, so it's really no surprise it still is.

TetsuoKaneda:

Enigmers:

ProfessorLayton:

Abedeus:
Torchlight, like Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Loki and so on already had a nice name before everyone started calling them action-RPGs.

Hack'n'slash games. Devil May Cry 3 and Diablo 2 are different only because Diablo 2 has more characters, possible combinations of skills and you gather equipment, not only souls/points to buy new skills and upgrade abilities.

I would actually go as far as to say none of those are really RPGs at all... the only reason they're called that is because they have heavy fantasy elements and an upgrade system... but in that case, you could call Dead Space an RPG.

Diablo 2 has a crapload of itemization and skill customization, much moreso than just about any jRPG I've ever played. Nobody would doubt that, for instance, Final Fantasy 7 is an RPG, but Diablo 2 had more skills and a ridiculously large amount of pre-determined items (and then all the randomly generated ones.) If Diablo 2 isn't an RPG, then nothing else is.

So nothing else is. Why are you judging this based on itemization? Fallout 2 has less items than Diablo 2 does, and yet Fallout 2 IS an RPG, in that it lets you define characters however you see fit. Also, it does a good job with letting you do what you want with the world, rather than having that shaped by the game. Customization does not an RPG make. It's what you can do with every aspect of the game. Such as in my favorite example of Fallout: You can slaughter whole towns, or leave them alive. Do certain quests and not others, and the town may be gone by the end of the game. There's one area where, if you're playing a brains type, you can actually introduce crop rotation. Diablo always felt like there was one solution to each problem: Kill X, Y, or Z. I didn't wanna kill, and I was forced to. A true RPG offers multiple solutions to each problem, and then, if the problem is far-reaching enough, allows you to contemplate the consequences.

Point being, everything in an RPG should be down to you, and not decided for you.

Edited because I had more to add.

And yet, in Fallout, you still had a main antagonist that you could not escape unless you resolved yourself to not complete the campaign.
Freedom comes with table top sets, not controllers.

TOGSolid:
Uh...guys?

I hate to break it to you, but there already a term for Diablo 2, Torchlight, Titan Quest, and any other game that involves spelunking for massive amounts of loot: Roguelikes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_roguelike_video_games

It's okay, but it's kind of mechanical.

I like "third-person looter", personally... And the clear distinction between this and "RPG" is that NOTHING that the player can do can alter the plot in any way. There's no farming, there's no merchanting, there's not even the possibility of selling /bow "rituals". There's nothing to do except kill stuff (for no actual improvement in the game world -- you can't even clear out a trade route that actually gets traders on it, in spite of the game talking about the possibility), and advance from one quest (killing something) to another (bring back a thing which is nearly if not totally useless to you personally, after killing stuff) until one finally reaches the predetermined end game opportunity to kill stuff. Even something as profound as picking a class barely shows an impact save for a couple of lines of dialog, mostly in the introduction speeches.

Toeys:

I think Shamus dealt with how charactervoicing was destructive to the whole roleplaying experience before in another article, and i find this true. The cost is just too huge for it
to work. Although Bioware wants to make us think otherwise.

I'd argue that KOTOR, Mass Effect and Dragon Age wouldn't be nearly as good (or immersive) were it not for the incredible voice acting that is all but omnipresent.

OT: I agree, the term "RPG" has become something of a meaningless term. What really starts to annoy me about it are the elitists who get snobby every time a game doesn't meet their definition of an RPG. A perfect example of this is Mass Effect 2, which has caused a massive divide among people who simply can't enjoy the game because it either cut or streamlined some of the number-crunching aspects of the game. I personally don't understand this because the entire game is about the story and you role-playing as Commander Shepard. It's not about leveling up.

I'd call Bioware games "RPG's" because you ARE actually playing a role (and don't give me that "well, you play a role in every game so every game is an RPG!" crap), rather than using a completely pre-built character. Same goes for Fallout 3, and any story-driven game that allows you to choose how your character acts and how he shapes the world around him. If you can make a difference in how the story plays out and who your character is (not just how battles are won), then I consider that a true RPG.

It's kind of funny that things like the Final Fantasy or Diablo series can be considered RPGs when player's sole responsibility to their narratives is surviving fights and jogging to the next cutscene or NPC. That's the same role the audience plays in every game with even a semblance of a story.

It seems weird to me that the attribute-improving, equipment-customizing portion of gameplay is enough for some games to fall under the RPG umbrella even though they are more about crunching numbers than playing roles. But then, some of these genre titles have always been a bit nebulous.

For arguments sake, lets call Diablo a RPG. In D&D your character, as you would play them, starts to hear rumours about a little town that is experiencing troubles. So you pack up your sword and set off for the hamlet of horrors. Upon arrival you learn that an ancient demon has set up residence in the nearby catacombs and wants to go about conquering the world and generally making mischief. So with sword drawn you walk down and hack apart anything that isn't a scantily clad wench, unless they have horns on their head.

Diablo could be considered an RPG IF you assume all that jazz about hearing the troubles of a small town took place before the game even started. As a counterpoint, you could argue whether or not you want to help said town was even a choice you had. If you buy the game you are taking the proverbial flier asking for help off the tavern wall and committing yourself to helping them.

I think actual choice is what makes an RPG an RPG. The decision to save the Galaxy by being or not being a jerk doesn't count. Deciding to save or conquer, is.

Maybe the problem isn't what we should call these games, but more that we so badly need to categorize games at all. I mean many new games are often a mixture of several genres and not only RPG has the problem that most games aren't totally RPG games, you have a similar problem with action games and whatever else there is. So you can take your time and invent subgenre after subgenre or you just write on the back of the game that it includes action and strategy and whatever elements and people might know enough then to buy the game or leave it be and everyone is happy.

008Zulu:
For arguments sake, lets call Diablo a RPG. In D&D your character, as you would play them, starts to hear rumours about a little town that is experiencing troubles. So you pack up your sword and set off for the hamlet of horrors. Upon arrival you learn that an ancient demon has set up residence in the nearby catacombs and wants to go about conquering the world and generally making mischief. So with sword drawn you walk down and hack apart anything that isn't a scantily clad wench, unless they have horns on their head.

Diablo could be considered an RPG IF you assume all that jazz about hearing the troubles of a small town took place before the game even started. As a counterpoint, you could argue whether or not you want to help said town was even a choice you had. If you buy the game you are taking the proverbial flier asking for help off the tavern wall and committing yourself to helping them.

I think actual choice is what makes an RPG an RPG. The decision to save the Galaxy by being or not being a jerk doesn't count. Deciding to save or conquer, is.

Cool. But then couldn't all games with storylines be considered RPGs?

I prefer to just add the titles you gave to them at the end to RPG. Says what kind of gameplay elements there are, as well as which one they focus on. Besides, I like how RPG is "nebulous." An FPS is an FPS; a racing game is a racing; a basket ball game is a basket ball game; most differences are cosmetic, rather than gameplay, or very minor changes. RPG's have so much variety to them. No one would doubt that FF7, Diablo 2, and Oblivion are all different games.

SuperChurl:

they are more about crunching numbers than playing roles.

Heh, seems like it'd be roleplaying for me.

RPG will always be all of these elements for me, not just the one.
I don't even play D&D, but I might take it up just to escape half-games.

JeanLuc761:
A perfect example of this is Mass Effect 2, which has caused a massive divide among people who simply can't enjoy the game because it either cut or streamlined some of the number-crunching aspects of the game.

I just miss my inventory... and nuclear bullets that melt people into green sludge.
Yeah, they were fun.

*Sigh*

It's very simple: An RPG is a game that allows you to guide your character's advancement. So yes, Diablo is obviously an RPG.

Genres describe gameplay mechanics, not thematic elements. Argue about it if you like, but agency over a game's storyline (choosing to be hero or villian) is not what you would (traditionally) call a mechanic because that feature is principally about defining your narrative.

Let's face it, past-decade Bioware games are JRPGs for the westernized market. Maybe a little more illusion of freedom and a bit more choice, but one basically gets shoehorned into moving along a mostly linear path with a bunch of sidequests. They're all about the story, the personalities, the romance... Characters just have smaller eyes and aren't as cute/freaky and combat is a more western -- more tactical, less RPSy.

Using Ron Edward's GNS (Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist) model for tabletop RPGs, most computer RPGs focus on Gamist play (combat maybe puzzles or sneaking or minigames). Some of make a token effort at Simulation to build a semi-viable world in the background with which to interact (although not better than, say, Dwarf Fortress). When computer games focus on Narrativist story they ALWAYS seem do it in a linear/non-choice fashion, like a stereotypical JRPG. Programmers haven't seemed to figure out how to tell stories without eliminating freedom yet. Maybe it's a difficult AI challenge or maybe they're just lazy and need to meet Q3 earnings targets. Personally, I think emergent stories are much more interesting than long, vaguely interactive movies and interminable cutscenes, but that must be just me since the market seems to love it.

Until that changes, I don't see how video "RPGs" are going to be all that similar to tabletop ones. "Computer RPG" inherently has to (and always has) mean something different -- usually borrowing a few trappings (such as character building or fantasy/sci-fi settings). I'm not sure whether the current proliferation of simplified RPG elements beyond the core is good or bad. On the bad side, it dumbs everything down. On the plus side, it exposes more gamers to at least a few RPG mechanics. Maybe the audience will become more sophisticated over time (hahaha)?

FloodOne:

TetsuoKaneda:

Enigmers:

ProfessorLayton:

Abedeus:
Torchlight, like Diablo 2, Titan Quest, Loki and so on already had a nice name before everyone started calling them action-RPGs.

Hack'n'slash games. Devil May Cry 3 and Diablo 2 are different only because Diablo 2 has more characters, possible combinations of skills and you gather equipment, not only souls/points to buy new skills and upgrade abilities.

I would actually go as far as to say none of those are really RPGs at all... the only reason they're called that is because they have heavy fantasy elements and an upgrade system... but in that case, you could call Dead Space an RPG.

Diablo 2 has a crapload of itemization and skill customization, much moreso than just about any jRPG I've ever played. Nobody would doubt that, for instance, Final Fantasy 7 is an RPG, but Diablo 2 had more skills and a ridiculously large amount of pre-determined items (and then all the randomly generated ones.) If Diablo 2 isn't an RPG, then nothing else is.

So nothing else is. Why are you judging this based on itemization? Fallout 2 has less items than Diablo 2 does, and yet Fallout 2 IS an RPG, in that it lets you define characters however you see fit. Also, it does a good job with letting you do what you want with the world, rather than having that shaped by the game. Customization does not an RPG make. It's what you can do with every aspect of the game. Such as in my favorite example of Fallout: You can slaughter whole towns, or leave them alive. Do certain quests and not others, and the town may be gone by the end of the game. There's one area where, if you're playing a brains type, you can actually introduce crop rotation. Diablo always felt like there was one solution to each problem: Kill X, Y, or Z. I didn't wanna kill, and I was forced to. A true RPG offers multiple solutions to each problem, and then, if the problem is far-reaching enough, allows you to contemplate the consequences.

Point being, everything in an RPG should be down to you, and not decided for you.

Edited because I had more to add.

And yet, in Fallout, you still had a main antagonist that you could not escape unless you resolved yourself to not complete the campaign.
Freedom comes with table top sets, not controllers.

I...I turned myself into a super mutant the first time I played Fallout. I let those fuckers in the Vault die, and then the Wasteland shortly after Vault 101 fell. The second time, I killed the mutants, blew up a church with an atom bomb, and then shot the Overseer in the face, singing tunelessly to myself as I did so. The third time, I talked my way through most conflicts and blew up a whole lot of stuff by convincing other people to. Then I shot the Overseer again. A story has to have a conflict and all, but there should be freedom to deal with it any way you like. Freedom isn't constrained to the tabletop, as these are all things I have done in both tabletop games and a pc game. Not all stories have to be strictly linear. Many ways to solve many problems with some varying consequences based on how you play the role. You see?

Thank... You...

I've been trying to point out the history for a while now. Unfortunately this doesn't solve any of the current dilemmas. -_-

It is impossible to role play in a computer game. not liek you can acchieve in a table-top, pen and paper game. Even with large customization freedom, there is only one story. MMO's are worse because the characters are all on seperate journies that just converge from time to time.

Do not make fun of an editor's fedora, they will suspend you.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here