POLL: Which kind of RPG do you prefer?

Remove all ads!

There are several types of RPGs out there. First of all, there the ones most here are familiar with: D&D-based RPGs, such as Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. However, there are plenty other kinds of RPG that exist. A personal favorite of mine is Squaresoft. (The company that made Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger/Cross, among other good games)

Let's take a look at the difference between the former kind and the latter kind. D&D-based games are real time, have somewhat less of plot, and all take place in the same setting (except for PS:T). Combat is fairly realistic; it's based on the D&D system, after all. Finally, you get to role-play your character as you like it. The Squaresoft games are a bit different. I like to think that their plots are more intricate and better thought out, if not sometimes a tad trite. The combat system is not as realistic as Baldur's Gate, NWN, etc. Some are turn based; others are not, but combat does tend to be less complex. Finally, there's actually less role-playing. The player doesn't truly role-play, the character already has his/her distinct personality and feelings. The player just moves the person around and makes him/her swipe swords or cast spells.

So there are several types of RPGs; realistic combat vs. not-so-realistic combat. Intricate, storylike plots vs. plots somewhat more direct. Role-playing a character vs. being a character with a set personality.

BTW: this is not a poll of D&D CRPGS vs. Squaresoft. The two are just examples.

Poll Information
This poll contains 3 question(s). 39 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Which kind of RPG do you prefer? (39 votes.)

Realistic combat vs. not-so-realistic combat (Choose 1)
* Realistic combat. Let's play it like it is - 56% (22)
* Not realistic. RPGs should be fun! Who cares if they're not realistic? - 44% (17)

Intricate plot vs. more direct plot (Choose 1)
* Intricate plot. I like a good game with a story - 100% (39)
* Direct plot. Just let me get the treasure and experience, please. - 0% (0)

Role-playing a character vs. simply being a character (Choose 1)
* Role-playing. I want to be my own person. - 82% (32)
* Being. Sometimes the plot has a better character drawn out that makes the game more interesting. - 18% (7)

 

Love both types of games. It's just that I'd never call Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, etc RPGs.

But where are Fallout and Arcanum in all this, hmm?

 

I prefer the usual PC RPGs. Console ones have a nice story, but just TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO niched, there are so many similarities between them.

 

You should really play more RPGs...

Types of RPGs :

Turn-based strategy RPGs : Fallout, DarkSun, Pool of Radiance

First Person RPGs : Might and Magic, Wizardry, Eye of Beholder

Real-Time Party based RPGs : Baldur's Gate, Planscape : Torment

FPS/RPGs : Strife, System Shock, Deus Ex

Action RPG : Zelda, Terranigma, Threads of Fate, Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3

turn-based/semi-real-time menu-selection RPG (or your average console RPG) : Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, ChronoTrigger, Xenogears, Wild Arms, Grandia, Lunar

Role-playing turn-based/real-time strategy : Front Mission, Final Fantasy Tactics, Shining Force, Jagged Alliance, Fallout Tactics

And many other types of RPGs...

[ October 04, 2002, 21:23: Message edited by: alighter ]

 

I absolutley adore the FF games. I fell in love with FFX.

 

I like both types, but I don't think the poll reflects that. As alighter pointed out, there are tons of RPG styles out there... Perhaps including more than three questions would help the poll encompass a broader spectrum of RPG's.

 

Soul here. Zelda isn't really much of an RPG, although I do point out that for whatever reason, people seem to assume that every game that has swords and magic is an RPG.

I met some idiot on a different forum site once, who said that Diablo II also wasn't an RPG and the reason was because you don't play a role, and RPGs are just Role playing games. "Just being able to edit stats doesn't make it a RPG!" I know perfectly well what RPG stands for, and that he used 'a' wrong.

The problem is, by his standards, EVERY game is an RPG. In Half-Life, your role is Gordon Freeman. In Daikatana, your role is Hiro Myamoto.
In Zelda, your role is Link. In every single game, they at least tell you who you are... who your role is... at least to the point where in DOOM you were just some space marine. You ALWAYS have a role, and just having a role is not enough to make an RPG. Much as I love Zelda, it's not an RPG. Diablo II is, though, and so is Baldur's gate, and Planescape: Torment. Those are RPGs. I won't name this guy because I'm not that petty, but just be glad he's wrong because otherwise 'RPG' would be the only category for games.

 

I like most types of RPGs, except console ones.
The console games are so lame sometimes in terms of dialouge and story. Some of the conversations sound like they were written for 10 year olds with brain damage (simplistic in the extreme). Final Fantasy is an exception though, it is pretty well written, and has a strong and interesting backstory to it.

I think games like Zelda are usually referred to as "action adventure" games rather than RPGs. At least that's what the people at my local Video Game Center call them.

I much prefer the PC RPGs, with numero uno being Baldur's Gate series, and the Fallout series as a close second.

 

Well, Diablo 2 is NOT an RPG...

that's my two cents.

I'd take console RPGs as RPGs rather than Diablo 2 as RPG

 

I consider Diablo a Hack'n'slash.

 

I'd say diablo is indeed a hack'nslash but it has still character development so it technically is an rpg

hack'nslash rpg

I like the (semi) turned base rpg: fallout baldurs, icewind.
but I also like the old snes rpg: secret of mana chrono that kinda stuff

 

Ray192 has got a point in there.

Console RPG's (especially the Japanese port ones), are like, cliche's.

There's always an evil American corporation or army. They are always raping the planet. The Japanese are always the ones that first invent bipedal robots. etc.

But everyone wants to make *their* favorite RPG that deciding factor in the genere. And it just doesn't work like that.

I figure any role playing game is one where you can "develop" your character more than one way. In Zelda, you can be an archer, bomber, sword fighter. It runs together, but it's just enough of a difference.

In Street Fighter, you're a kung-fuer. Not much leeway there. Same deal with Double Dragon. Sure you can wield a ball-bat, or throw knives, but you can only do that for so long. Then it's back to the grinder.

Personally, I think there's a bunch of RPG's out there that have no storyline. Diablo2 is like this. There *is* a storyline, but it's like a Japanese RPG. The mysterous space people just landed here; no one ever tells you why, that's just where the story starts so that what you have to work with.

Diablo1 did considerably better with this, as you could read the "tomes" through the game. And if you read the back of the manual, then you also knew what was up.

My kingdom for a well thought out plot. Like Fallout1's plot...

 

You haven't played many console RPGs have you? Sounds like you only played FF7, or at least not any non-Square RPG...

And PC RPGs are not that renowned for storylines, if you want rich, varied storylines, the better bet is on console RPGs. Although certain PC RPGs are great in this department (PST is IMO the game with the best storyline ever, including console RPGs), mostly the storyline is about fighting against some great evil which is... well... simply evil...

 

In console RPG's the entire story and dialogue are already made to happen in a strick course of events. All the characters are programmed to do *this* at *this* time, no if's an's or but's. There is literally no chance to jump off the story path and fool around. Sure you can walk around in the same area and battle, but that gets dull fast. In the few that allow several paths, it's only for a sort while before your forced back on to the games linear set path. Bottom line: You have a lot less freedom and tons more restrictions. You have no control over how your character levels or interacts with the story as it's all premeditated.

Many are happy with this. I was too before discovering Baldur's Gate and the like. But as I discovered more computer based RPG's, I only became to loath the console variants more and more.

Don't get me wrong. I still like some console RPGs. FF6, Chrono Trigger, and Earthbound are the best (if rather old) ones out there.

Planescape: Torment is still king though.

[ October 08, 2002, 07:13: Message edited by: Frog ]

 

There must be few games with a storyline better than BG. And I hear that FF is more cutscenes than actualy playing the game.

 

I think that games like FF7 are more like reading a book than playing an RPG, When it comes to an RPG, nothing beats BG2 and the like, But the FF7 and the like are fabulous in their own right... I wish there was a better moniker for them than RPG...

Ara
(Playing FFVIII and loving it)

 

"The problem is, by his standards, EVERY game is an RPG. In Half-Life, your role is Gordon Freeman. In Daikatana, your role is Hiro Myamoto."

actually, RPGs have strategy, right? But does it make them strategy games? No, the point is that the name is given to games that their main concentration is that genre, such as action, who take action above all else, RPGs are in this case the same, except that some of the recent RPGs changed that rule (such as Final Fantasy).

"And PC RPGs are not that renowned for storylines, if you want rich, varied storylines, the better bet is on console RPGs. Although certain PC RPGs are great in this department (PST is IMO the game with the best storyline ever, including console RPGs), mostly the storyline is about fighting against some great evil which is... well... simply evil... "

actually, most of the times the villan is just mislead or shares a different opinion, such as President Richardson in Fallout 2, the master in fallout 1, Kerghan in Arcanum and etc. And besides, in many RPGs, you can be evil yourself and just battle the villan to raise your own power.

 

Most of you have good points about what RPG is, but we have to consider that the term "RPG" have actually evolved. AFAIK, games such as King's Quests, Leisure Suites Larry, Maniac Mansion, Battle Tech, Mines of Titans, early D&D and AD&D titles, and other old games were considered as "RPG" but most of them never allowed any character development or combat strategy at all. Myst and Loom were sometimes considered as RPGs, so were the Indiana Jones and Monkey Island series. In fact, IIRC, there was a game by Infocom which was considered as a text-based RPG (Zork, if I'm not mistaken). Some people might argue that most of the games I mentioned were actually "adventure", but still, many sofeware game company consider them as "RPG-adventure" or simply "RPG". The term "RPG" have long been coined, it had existed probably longer than some of us. Initially it simply means a game that lets you role-play as someone else. It was a genre with vague definition that I somethimes think that it was use to separate "intelligent" games from arcade games (hack n slash and shoot-up games).

But times changed, RPG have evolved and branched out. It had been refined and several categories have been defined. Is this for the better? Maybe, maybe not... it get's confusing too you know. And alighter have mentioned several types of those. So the concept "games that allow you to role-play someone" is actually right but OUTDATED.

So is Diablo 2 an RPG? Yes, because it offers character development, not to mention allows you to choose what character you want to role-play. Strategy, yes, it does have that too, although minimal. No, because it is simply a brainless hack and slash game. So there you have it, "Yes" and "No" are probably both correct and both wrong answer.

Maybe game developers and players should come up with an official rule for game genre, you know, like D&D rule sets.

 

"Maybe game developers and players should come up with an official rule for game genre, you know, like D&D rule sets."

how ´interesting´, every released game would base upon the same system. nah...you can´t mean that seriously.

and every software publisher/retailer/user that described games like King's Quests, Leisure Suites Larry, Maniac Mansion, Battle Tech, Mines of Titans, Myst, Loom, Indiana Jones and Monkey Island series as a rpg got a ´official-moron´-sign and a big fat laugh in the face from me, nowadays and 10 years ago.

"early D&D and AD&D titles, and other old games were considered as "RPG" but most of them never allowed any character development or combat strategy at all."

wrong, apart from some horrible spin-offs (e.g. hillsfar), every part of ssi´s gold box series (the first to adapt d&d on a computer) featured these standards. in fact, gold boxers had the first real tactical battle screen.
all d&d strategy and action games were correctly marked as such in the ssi catalogues in those days and could never mixed up with the rpgs.

don´t get me wrong, apart from the standard-overall-rule-system you´ve got an opinion that i´d comply with but your trail of evidence got its lacks *g*

 

ettercap,

although you disregarded the coma, i still think you're right. at least we did both agreed on the main idea that "RPG" had evolved and become more complex.