Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
EQN is not an RPG or even an Action-RPG; SOE is making it much more like a pure Adventure GAME
seacow1g
Member UncommonPosts: 266
First let me come out and say I'm not a fan anymore of tab-target combat. That said, I do think MMORPG game devs are starting to stray too far from the core elements that make an RPG an RPG. You can argue as much as you want that they are doing "new things" or being "innovative" but it has just dawned on me that none of this stuff is new for games...There is a genre which has been doing this kind of stuff for over 20 years: Adventure GAMES
Let's draw some comparisons:
-Adventure games don't have experience points/levels/character attributes (if they do they are called action-rpg's)
-Adventure games have "action combat" that is based less on class mechanics, random number generator, character attributes, status effects etc. and more on player movement and use of special abilities.
-Character progression in adventure games typically involves getting new items or abilities that allow your character to perform actions or play with playstyles that were previously inaccesible (not stronger than previously accessed abilities but give the character more action options to choose from depending on the situation)
-Abilities that a player has available to use at any point in time are typically limited to a small number and determined by the weapon the character is using and which quickbar abilities the player has chosen for their playstyle (a mechanic chosen to make action combat manageable with console controllers). Whereas RPG games typically give the player access to all the skills the player has acquired at once and lets them choose which ones are most efficient to use in the heat of combat.
Any of this sound familiar? Sounds alot like where they are going with EQN.
Now if the game turns out great then that's fine but I would hardly call it an MMORPG or even Action MMORPG, it seems it is going much more in the direction of a pure adventure game (with emotes). Thankfully I'm a big fan of Devil May Cry and the like.
I also wouldn't say that any of these concepts are new either. Destructible environments, collecting skills with no attribute increases, and no levels are standard features of a pure adventure game. The only difference is that these things haven't been done in a largescale multiplayer game yet.
Now before you start bashing the pillar features of RPG's and the like just remember that gaming companies chose to make RPG, Adventure Games and hybrids of the two for many years for a reason; there is an audience that truly like the elements that make up a true RPG. I'm not saying MMO's have to be RPG's or even than EQN needs to be an RPG to be awesome, but I've just realized that they are making it much more like a pure adventure game and wanted to point that out.
Comments
Im not buying the Hype this time around, show me the meat!
MAGA
Without ROLES, it's not a ROLE play games.
I don't think that's up to debate (although SoE and Arenaet might disagree)
All you can do is speculate. IMO its more RPG then any AAA mmo in the last 10 years. The world remembers your actions, you control your look, your characters "alignment", race, even expressions, your actions effect the world around you, choose to help that farmer or side with the orcs. Now if this doesnt like an RPG then I dont know what is.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
The ROLE in RPG doesnt mean TANK, DPS, HEALER. It means playing the ROLE of an archer, mage, necromancer, sorceress, ect ect. RPG games have been around for 30+ years and Role never meant TANK, DPS, and Healer.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
OP, in your opinion they are making it more like a pure action game.
Or maybe you should go back to adventure titles like Zelda and re-think everything over again?
Are the features you made comparisons to largely in action titles or adventure. Plus, how do you distinguish original adventure titles from original RPGs? I know some folks have a hard time with that one
.
Haha, based on that nonsense... I'll assume you started playing games at about 2000 or afterwards. Perhaps with a mmorpg being your first.
Permanent change and storylines are also pillars employed by pure action games. The only difference is RPG's added in the option of making choices in your story. This is something that they are doing that does have RPG in it. As far as combat and character development goes though it seems they are going the pure action route. RPG's have always made use of character attributes, random number generator and levels.
LOL I read that and almost did a spit take myself. LOL!
Good point, I was thinking adventure game and fixed it in the thread. Anyway I wouldn't really call Zelda games RPG's either. They have action combat, no stats, no levels and really depend on player movement and the different actions that items give you to beat enemies and solve puzzles. There also isn't very much actual ROLE PLAYING in those games either in the sense that you don't determine Links appearance, personality, playstyle or make any of his choices.
"Game-bashing by a vocal minority in all its varied forms–criticism, social exclusion to possible buyers, shaming, unsubscribing menacing treats, doom talks about the genre, jokes, gossip, bullying–is one of the last acceptable forms of prejudice. From a very earlier development stage, before the game can even get into Beta and the developers could not have time to prove how their new ideas works and defend themselves in the forums, young gamers are taught to judge a game in how it look, and how it does not look, not what the player can do or what they can experience and discover playing the game. The game bashing wont accept anything but a clone of their old obsolete game"
Ha I love it! +1
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
This thread isn't about bashing, it's purely about pointing out that the game is neither an RPG, nor doing much really new for gaming in general. These features that they are touting as original are not new and have been used for many years in ADVENTURE GAMES. You could say they are new to an RPG but I'm just showing that you can't call it an RPG when it gets rid of most of the elements that make an RPG an RPG. The only thing new is using ADVENTURE design in a massive multiplayer game.....and THAT is indeed new. That's what dawned on me today.
They have been used in adventure games, but what about mmos? Hmmmm nope cant think of one. RPG means Role-playing Game. IF they allow people to mix 40 different classes to pick a ROLE they want. Such as a spell slinging thief then IMO it is a RPG.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
Tank, dps and healer are roles. Individual classes identify with certain larger roles. Those are the roles were discussing, leave your semantic games at the door.
Anyway, great post OP.
Also great post ste2000, without roles, it isn't a role playing game and thats exactly what they've done. They've removed the roles and are attempting to keep the classes separate from their roles by making an action adventure game instead of an MMORPG.
It's not about "roles" it's about "roleplaying".
"To refer to taking a role of an existing character or person and acting it out with a partner taking someone else's role"
"Many children participate in a form of role-playing known as make believe, wherein they adopt certain roles such as doctor and act out those roles in character."
Roleplaying was getting together with a group of friends over a pen and paper game, "roleplaying" a story. That is the root of RPGs. RPGs were never about having a tank, healer and 4 dps. D&D night - "Yep in tonights game I'm gonna need Johnny to play a tank because the Dragon ate Bobby last week. Don't worry we will PUG a healer so Johnny doesn't die tonight." Yeah that's how table top games went down.
Actually, Tank, DPS, Healer are specs.
Warrior, Rogue, Priest are the roles. A Priest =/= healing in RPGs. Rogues were mostly a class of sneaking and thievery. Within a role you may have multiple specializations. In Role Playing Games you play the role of a Warrior but might specialize in Tanking, Damage, etc.
Please stop changing the terms to fit your arguments when there is 30+ years of general consensus on what the terms mean.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
More semantics. Thats not what we are referring to. I understand roles in a theater, but we are talking about roles in relation to combat. Thanks for playing.
No. They may be called specs in some games, but a person healing is playing the "role" of a healer.
role
[rohl] Show IPA
2.
The class that functions as a healer, is playing the "role" of healer.
Please stop detracting from this conversation with these semantics games.
Your definition of role-playing is correct. Tanks and healers are not required for a game to be considered an RPG. But tanks are healers ARE roles and getting rid of them does get rid of the ability for players to roleplay those kinds of characters. Of course SOE never said that healers and tanks won't exist but if they make it so encounters never need a person healing or a person beefing up and taking the brunt of the damage then people won't be able to play them.
In my mind, the best way they can pull the combat off is making it so a multitude of strategies and combinations of playstyles can be used to defeat challenging encounters. However, it's very important that they make these encounters actually REQUIRE coordination. Hate on the trinity all you want but the reason people love it so much is because it's coordinated, encounters that are designed around it REQUIRE group members to take on specific responsibilities and execute them. People criticize trinity encounters by calling them a "dance" but the truth is that any kind of combat that is beautiful to watch and execute is in fact a "dance". Awesome fight scenes in movies? Choreographed "dance". You ever seen or been a real life brawl? It's sloppy. To feel like a group you need coordination. Is the trinity the only strategy for coordinated fights? Hell no and I hope EQN can evolve RPG's beyond that. Should combat require coordination and should EQN INCLUDE the use of potent tank and healing mechanics though? I say absolutely. The more types of group tactics that should be employed to beat enemies in the game the better.
Yes, I know what the dictionary definition 'role' is.
But
You are playing an MMORPG, which is still an RPG. RPG's never focused on Tank, Healer, DPS - These terms are a post EQ term. To say you cannot have an RPG without these Tank/Healer/DPS 'roles' is pure fallacy.
To play your role in an RPG was to play the part of your character - its life, its likes and dislikes, its actions, demeanor, its raison d'etre. No where did it specifically state "You have to be X"
So yes, for the proper definition of RPG - you are wrong. To say "Well yes, they have a Warrior but no pure tanking class, so its there are no 'roles'..." you are again wrong.
And stop playing the 'semantics' card, it just makes you sound desperate when trying to make your logic fit.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
The traditional RPG though was all about acting or storytelling, so it has direct impact. Just because the OP slanted his post towards action games doesn't mean that a historical discussion about RPGs is not relevant. The OP talks about the core elements that make an RPG, and I don't think you can get any more core than the story of the players - i.e. Roleplayers.
The person that spurred some of this current discussion was ste200 with his "without roles it can't be an RPG". My point is that you don't need "roles" to have an RPG; you only need a good story and an avenue for players to act out in game with their characters. That is the basis of an RPG to me.
So when the OP talks about moving away from an RPG and towards an action game, I agree that EQN may not meet the traditional RPG criteria; then again it may hit it dead on. It really depends on what the in game stories and adventures mean to the players. But none of that has to do with the tank/healer/dps roles that people have relied on in other games.
A Roleplaying Game or RPG is one of playing a character, it is NOT about having a character that is a healer in a role. It's not semantics, because it really does get to the heart of the matter. In table top games you never had a tank/healer/dps trifecta, you had friends that played their characters abilities in sync with others. You may not have had a heavy melee class (tank) or a healer, but you could still go adventuring.
After hearing that Georgeson worked on some pnp games before online games, I think that this is actually closer to being a true RPG than anything we have seen over the last 10 years.
The OP had a great post, and I actually agree with some of his sentiments. I just don't view the whole "role" discussion in a way that a few others here do.
*Edit - The OP made a comment on my post that I really does think hits where he is going. We need everyone to have a fun and unique responsibility in the game. I also agree that combat should require coordination. Again I believe that both responsibility and coordination can be done without the traditional holy grail of tank/healer/dps.
"The more types of group tactics that should be employed to beat enemies in the game the better." Completely agree
You know that adventure games are ones with puzzle solving, focus on story, dialogue and stuff like that right? Games like Broken Sword, Myst and The Walking Dead (Telltale).
I get what you are trying to say.. but the adventure genre is not the name you are looking for.
Thank you for your antiquated take on things.
I know exactly how it was, and how it is now. Definitions evolve. More people are referring to the role played in the world related to their function or class. The true roleplaying crowd is probably like 5% or less of the players of an MMORPG. In MMORPGS, the class type roles its based on have existed since prior to the creation of the genre. Its not exclusive, but it is the way the genre works.
Why do people take the term Roleplay and make it into just role? Roleplay just means to play a make believe character that is not you. You don't need a "role" you just need something that is a fictional representation of yourself doing things that you could or could not normally do with far less limitations.
I say, put the roleplay back in RPG. Let us get back into the habit of being involved with our character and building their reputation instead of just farming phat lewts and queuing for dungeons to get more phat lewts where your name means nothing as does all of your accomplishments because well...everyone else has done them too. EQ was great not because it was hard or because it had boring long drawn out combat or because it was game changing. It was great because it made you love your character and when you died, you felt genuinely upset because you didn't just lose time running back to your corpse as a ghost, you lost time a lot of time, possibly character abilities if you deleveled, and possibly your gear if your corpse is unrecoverable. Am I saying you need all of these? No. In fact, you don't need any of them.
If you want a fun game play experience which it looks like this is trying to make, they're taking away the silly parts of EQ which were not fun and enhancing the parts that were amazing. The community, helping your friends, adventuring in places that you thought you shouldn't, exploring new places without maps, learning by trial and error the way the game works (only in EQN it will change...thx new AI!).
So yes, put the RP back in RPG. I'm not saying pretend you're a dwarf and start talking like one...but if you can please do! It should be you fitting into your character and basically feeling like it is a little piece of you...that's it. Too many people want to think that you need a role in a group or a raid to have it be an RPG, that's just a game with groups...silly folks.
Currently playing Everquest on Project1999
If you're roleplaying having an adventure it means you have to fight, explore, interact. The part of the adventure that we seem to be arguing about most is the fight part. There's two ways to fight, both alone and in groups: With discipline or without.
As any member of military or any martial arts expert will tell you, there is a huge difference between fighting with discipline and without it. Fighting with discipline is always more efficient and effective than fighting without it. But discipline is not always required to win. If you are stronger than your opponent and/or luckier then you can win without discipline. However, discipline in combat shows its value when facing a force greater than your own, and it is there where tactics are truly needed if you want to win consistently without luck.
To fight with discipline means to have structure; a framework that forms you or your group's responses when faced with any combat scenario. The structure of group combat is determined by roles; responsibilities that each member of a group will fulfill in a grand fighting scenario. Roleplayers like the principle of assigning "roles" in combat scenarios because people inherently know that structured combat against a stronger opponent is more likely to succeed than an unstructured approach. The designation of roles makes a struggle feel more lifelike; because without the need for roles to consistently win implies that the players are either stronger than the enemy (and thus it is easy) or just very lucky.
Tanks and healers are just some of the many roles that roleplayers have invented over the years to give structure to combat scenarios. The"holy trinity" is by no means necessary for combat to have structure though. The only thing that is needed for structure in combat is roles for the players to fulfill.
At its core, the only "role" that any fight in a game requires is DPS. The reason for this is because the only way to "win" an encounter is to do enough damage to kill the enemy or make it give up. Sure you could theoretically design a game with different victory objectives like distracting the enemy, surviving a certain amount of time or luring them to a certain location, but such games are seldom made. Assuming that EQN will employ the standard combat objective of hurting/killing the enemy then the statement that tanks/healers will not be NEEDED is very concerning to me due to the aforementioned "necessity" of DPS in any hurt/kill combat scenario.
Almost by definition, a DIFFICULT encounter is one which has a number of REQUIREMENTS that need to be met in order to be completed. Obviously the more REQUIREMENTS that an encounter has, the more difficult it is. As we've already established in a hurt/kill scenario the only irreplaceable requirement is DPS, whether the fight be hard or easy. Now if a fight does not REQUIRE tanking or healing (as a "holy trinity" structure of combat would) in order to be successful, what does it require? I am by no means saying that tanking or healing are the only roles that can be required for success in a combat scenario but for structured combat to take place some kinds of roles/responsibilities need to be required for it to be considered difficult. And if it's not difficult? Then I would find it boring.
Now there is one way that I can think of that would allow for all kinds of roles to be deemed "unnecessary" and yet could still make the encounters be difficult and require structure: Allow for multiple WAYS to achieve "victory" (as mentioned earlier) in any given encounter. In such a system even DPS would not always be a required role to achieve victory; if none of the players felt like playing that way. I would like to think that with their "advanced AI" the SOE devs plan to pursue something along these lines but I suspect that they intend to mostly go with the standard kill/hurt scenarios based on so many mentions of "killing" the enemies in their interviews. If that is the case then I do have reason to worry about the possible lack of structure in EQN's group combat.
?
That's all I got :P