Originally posted by Scorchien There is a huge difference between Role-playing and Playimg a Role ... this is where people confuse the definition , and cant figure out the differences or how to distinguish/seperate the two..
"Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behaviour to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role."
So I am kind of at a loss as to what distinction you are making here. Role-playing is playing a role.
Originally posted by Kajidourden Lol @ this article. Everything is everything!
+1 No, all games are not RPG and all online games are not MMO.
+2
"A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged. A more formal term is equivocation.
Weasel words can be used in advertising and in political statements, where encouraging the audience to develop a misleading impression of what was said can lead to advantages, at least in the short term (in the longer term, systematic deception is likely to be identified, with a loss of trust in the speaker)."
For me at least FlyByNight has passed the event horizon and I place no value in anything he says.
Originally posted by Kajidourden Lol @ this article. Everything is everything!
+1 No, all games are not RPG and all online games are not MMO.
+2
"A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged. A more formal term is equivocation.
Weasel words can be used in advertising and in political statements, where encouraging the audience to develop a misleading impression of what was said can lead to advantages, at least in the short term (in the longer term, systematic deception is likely to be identified, with a loss of trust in the speaker)."
For me at least FlyByNight has passed the event horizon and I place no value in anything he says.
Nailed it.
The recent pervasive attempts at "redefining" game labels and genre's has more to do with marketing and sales targets than anything else. If you can convince (or fool) the gaming public that your game is both an RPG and a FPS, you've just effectively doubled the potential sales...
I've played RTS games where units gain experience and unlock special abilities at higher ranks. So RTS = RPG ?
Is it logical to expect MOBA news and reviews on a website called "MMORPG.COM" ?
MMORPG.COM was born in an age when the genre it served was crystal clear and well-defined. But the site name has become an unfortunate "millstone around their necks".
The nature of online gaming has changed and broadened significantly. But this website also needs to "stay current" as well as growing its revenue. The broader its coverage of games becomes, the bigger the audience it will (hopefully) attract. More page views leads to more revenue for the site. So I can kind of understand why the staff will encourage a "blurring of the lines", because it justifies their increasing coverage of things not strictly classed as "MMORPG's".
This article is pure cancer and contributes to the entire genre declining in the games themselves and the media surrounding them. The genre and the media is already in a really bad state because of the last decade of cancer; micro transactions, WoW clones with a twist, calling things mmo's that arnt, media reviews being paid for, early access, alpha/beta's that are no more than a marketing tool, ect.
We are in the last days if this current status quo continues. Think about that before you post complete and utter tripe next time you insufferable sell out.
I really don't think for the most part we can say that RPG is a main genre anymore.
Most MMORPG's have never really involved much RPG.
RPG is expensive, in terms of art and writing and staffing and support and creativity. The less of this nonsense we can get away not paying for, the better, from a commercial POV.
And honestly, the micro-segment of customers who are actually interested in playing a "real" RPG is vanishingly small, and will not pay the bills.
When people talk about RPG in video games you can generally lump those talks into 2 groups.
1) Story. Things like the the ability for the characters choices to affect the world, and the outcome of the story.
2) Character building. Pen and paper RPG, D&D, the big daddy of RPGs had a variety of systems around choosing stats, abilities, classes, etc... and it had features like experience points and leveling up that became the norm for RPG video games.(not exactly the same as D&D but in the same spirit).
1 has never really been done successfully in an MMORPG. So to consider this an MMORPG feature doesn't make a lot of sense. Story by itself is not an RPG feature, well at least not a feature exclusive to RPGs. Games like Bioshock(which I loved) have some RPG(character building) features but honestly the game is more of an interactive movie than an RPG.
2 is what we see a lot of now in other genres now, FPS, racing, etc... but these are features that were born in RPG games. That doesn't mean they are no longer RPG features. That is silly. An action game with some driving features doesn't mean driving games no longer exist. If games want to include more and more RPG(character building) features in their games, it simply means that players want more of these features in their games. When you see MMORPGs including less and less of them(like WoW which pretty much has very little RPG left in it) it makes me wonder what the hell they are thinking.
We have seen games for whatever reason,likely they just suck at making a ROLE playing game,but they have tried to remove the ROLE from a rpg,that is just ludacris.
Geesh even as little kids we used to role play on the street,pretending we were Wayne Gretzky playing street hockey.Not ONCE did we ever think we needed to change what hockey was,it always remained the same.However you get those just like in gaming who say ,well that's boring and defense is boring and low scores is boring,we need to change it to make it more exciting.To those i say take a look at Soccer,it's been the same way for 100 years,you either like it or you don't,changing it just changes what it is suppose to be.
To that i have always said likely more than 50% of rpg players do not belong in a rpg,they do not want a world ,they want an instant level and end game gear.So they do not want to play a ROLE in a game,simply give me levels as fast as yo ucan and i want the best loot the game has to offer.
Now you think if you picked some legendary person to role play,they would be thinking,.oh yes i need to step on that new territory it gives me free experience,no it is one of the most retarded rpg ideas i have ever seen.It has absolutely NOTHING to do with role playing.
Point is if you don't like role playing in a game,look for something else,quit trying to change rpg's into something that fits your need.
As to the MMO aspect in the titles name.It is like calling your sports team a team with only one player on it,NO it is not a team just because you say it is.That si what dvs are doing,designing SOLO games and calling them MMO's.You can't say your game is a MMO if it does not perform as one,soling and lobby game play is NOT MMO,game play.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by Scorchien There is a huge difference between Role-playing and Playimg a Role ... this is where people confuse the definition , and cant figure out the differences or how to distinguish/seperate the two..
"Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behaviour to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role."
So I am kind of at a loss as to what distinction you are making here. Role-playing is playing a role.
If you dont know the difference and you need to refer to Wikpedia , you dont and wont know the differnece..
But, for some reason, here at MMORPG, people have injected so many other things into that simple meaning, that it means nothing now.
To me...you take on a roll and progress said roll. Which is why if you look at the old school gaming sites, there are so many different styles there. Because there are so many ways to RPG!
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
But, for some reason, here at MMORPG, people have injected so many other things into that simple meaning, that it means nothing now.
To me...you take on a roll and progress said roll. Which is why if you look at the old school gaming sites, there are so many different styles there. Because there are so many ways to RPG!
Actually I think you are putting too much emphasis on the word "Role". You play a role in most games. While you also play a role in an RPG VIDEO GAME, that was never what differentiated it from other games.
The old RPG VIDEO GAMES were modeled on RPG pen and paper games. You played a role in just about any video game you could pick up. What differentiated RPG VIDEO GAMES are thing like rolling up a character, leveling up, improving statistics, and yes gear like the good ol' +1 longsword, story with a sense of freedom and the ability to choose your path(although generally extremely limited in video games). That is where they took the name for the genre from not the "Role" part because even though that is present it has also been present in every other video game.
When you talk about RP as in "speaking in character" etc, that really never had anything to do with single player RPG video games for obvious reasons(you aren't actually talking to anybody) , and in multi-player RPG video games it has always been an extremely minor niche in the genre.
I reject this article outright as I will NEVER consider Super Mario Bros or Sonic The Hedgehog side-scrollers a RPG...because that is the BS being spewed here. Role-Playing is more than just playing a role because you are playing a role in PONG...the role of the bar.
This is more pandering to gaming companies to excuse their using the wrong labels to sell their games.
If a game is cross genre, call it that.
If a game is a new genre, come up with a new name.
Stop abusing words for the sake of advertising and let your game stand on its own merits.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
GameByNightHardware and Technology EditorMMORPG.COM Staff, MemberRarePosts: 811
@JJ82 That is not what this article is saying at all, or even close to it. The comments here are taking a course of their own, and fair enough, but it should be noted for anyone coming along that I, nor anyone other than readers, have said that an RPG is so broad as people are suggesting.
I do want to clarify, however, that the column isn't a manifesto on covering anything that could remotely be called an RPG. Certain games are clear, you know what they're an RPG from a million yard glance. Others, where they may be cross-genre are less so, but still worth discussing as a community. This article lays put the loose guidelines on what is in and out. The definition I have laid out, bolded and underlined, rules out games that are clearly more action, shooter, whatever, from being included. I will not be writing about Battlefield, for example, just because you level up a soldier.
That said, if your own perceptions are so limited that you can't see how a game can occupy two genres at once - and have a depth of design beyond turn-based dungeon crawling - then I sense the future of gaming is going to be unkind to you. If, like is being intimated by some commenters here, I did not acknowledge the evolution of the genre, games like Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Witcher 2/3, and Borderlands would be ruled out because they are also heavily into the action and shooter genres.
GameByNightHardware and Technology EditorMMORPG.COM Staff, MemberRarePosts: 811
Originally posted by Sukiyaki
Originally posted by Truefoe I suppose we will just have to go back to the 80's description and call them all video games.
But that would miss the point of misslabeling video games as MMORPGs (this is what this topic is all about) for monetary benefits. Be it iexcuses made for some paid articles about non-mmorpgs, inflating some bogus science charts or just deceptive marketing from cheap game publisher. This stupid "We need to evolve the terms because of [insert desperate twists and stretches with zero real world relevance]. If you disagree you are an ugly neckbeard!" agenda is not constantly pushed into our faces by the same few individuals for our own sake or practical reasons.
Actually, this topic is not about MMORPGs at all. Like, even a little bit. Second, I struggle to understand how you could think MMORPG is a sufficient term to encompass all of the many games that have released over the last 20 years. You would agree that Ultima Online and Neverwinter are different enough to warrant some variation, yes? Star Wars Galaxies and Wizard101? If you think evolving terms to meet actual game releases has no real world relevance, you're living in a much simpler reality than I am. You can disagree but the discussion is still worth having.
Also, the whole "paid article" thing is a stretch since this article wasn't about any one game (it's also entirely untrue, but I won't convince you of that). I'll say this much though, if I could collect a check every time I mentioned a dev's game, I'd be writing a whole lot more top ten lists. A few months into a "top 500" and I could retire. But, sadly, that comment has "zero real world relevance."
@JJ82That said, if your own perceptions are so limited that you can't see how a game can occupy two genres at once - and have a depth of design beyond turn-based dungeon crawling - then I sense the future of gaming is going to be unkind to you.
Oh great, a columnist that has poor reading skills.
Originally posted by JJ82
If a game is cross genre, call it that.
If a game is a new genre, come up with a new name.
How quaint.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
GameByNightHardware and Technology EditorMMORPG.COM Staff, MemberRarePosts: 811
Originally posted by JJ82
Originally posted by GameByNight
@JJ82That said, if your own perceptions are so limited that you can't see how a game can occupy two genres at once - and have a depth of design beyond turn-based dungeon crawling - then I sense the future of gaming is going to be unkind to you.
Oh great, a columnist that has poor reading skills.
Originally posted by JJ82
If a game is cross genre, call it that.
If a game is a new genre, come up with a new name.
How quaint.
I'll clarify here that only the first part of my comment was directed at you. The rest was speaking to the larger conversation, so I apologize if you took that personally.
That said, my reply was prompted by the first part of your comment, which you snipped.
Originally posted by JJ82
I reject this article outright as I will NEVER consider Super Mario Bros or Sonic The Hedgehog side-scrollers a RPG...because that is the BS being spewed here. Role-Playing is more than just playing a role because you are playing a role in PONG...the role of the bar.
This is more pandering to gaming companies to excuse their using the wrong labels to sell their games.
You reject the article outright and then use... Super Mario Brothers and Sonic as your examples? The "BS being spewed here" has literally nothing to do with your comment. Before you criticize someone else for "poor reading skills," you should probably make sure you didn't miss the point of the article completely.
I have to agree with OP's "assertion that Dying Light deserves to be talked about as an RPG. It isn’t even a question." I have seen many speak against it but not one really explained the WHY! Only thing I could think of could be "moral choices" as there are none in Dying Light. Compared to for example DA:I. As that's to me a more traditional old school mix with next gen RPG. It's not that I consider Dying Light a RPG as I see it as a Survivel Open World Game. But considering what I want from a RPG I sure as hell comes close.
I have my personal criteria that I don't feel should nor needs to match that of the many.
Have a humanoid character, doesn't really matter what type of race/species if alien aslong I feel connected towards the character I am playing.
Place that character in a believable world where your actions have meaning and conseqence in that gameworld. But those conseqence's need to be felt or seen through out your journey.
It should be fun playing the game even without running the mainstory. Sort of let's say just fooling around. Then again "fun" is very subjective. Take Dying Light for example. I often find myself going off route, seeing something I want to explore, find items or plain simple curious what's inside that building, seeing if I can help that stranger. Overall the gameworld feels alive/dead ehh zombies :P
I do disgree with many that said "well in any game you play a role" while that's true to a extend I don't feel it fits the RPG segment. Because many genre's do not have persistant world which to me is key to having a game either be RPG or have RPG element. Take race games, sure there is a world you race in, you progress. But your not really progressing if you just drive around? you need to race right? Same with many FPS games, sure you play the role of a soldier but it's done in a linear fashion, your enemy's stay dead, you can go back to places or doing so would just show the battlefield you left behind when won. If you want a new experiance you need to continue the linear path to see change's.
RPG's in general have changed/evolved allot. Then again in the early day's we also have lots of different type of "RPG's" Even in the early 80's it wasn't really clear what was or was not a RPG even if the gamecompany promoted their game RPG. Many seem to have forgetten this it seems.
You reject the article outright and then use... Super Mario Brothers and Sonic as your examples? The "BS being spewed here" has literally nothing to do with your comment. Before you criticize someone else for "poor reading skills," you should probably make sure you didn't miss the point of the article completely.
Short term memory issues as well?
"I, and this column, identify RPGs to cover like this: An RPG is a game that focuses on the development of a main character, created or provided, to a substantial degree, and provides the player efficacy in their development. This can be through meaningful decisions, through dialogue or skill trees, or the meaningful choices on the journey through gameplay. It can include action, shooting, climbing, racing, or any outer-genre staple, but at least one main focus must remain on building that character (or multiples) and empowering the player to shape their role on that path"
Which when applied using your logic can include a plumber that runs, jumps and climbs that can gather power-ups at key moments to empower the player and shape their role on that path that if gone without would make the journey difficult and some fights impossible.
You have a clear character in Mario, a plumber, with a story that progresses throughout the game. The game has items to be gathered for more lives thus extending the game as well as various other items that give plenty of benefits/powers to be used.
Its an appropriation of a genre name because of pure laziness of its creators to create a new name for a new genre and you latch onto it...because.
And if you must know why I take issue its because of what followed the above "What I knew an RPG to be when I was 10 doesn't have to be what I know it as now. And really, who would want it to be? A prison of nostalgia is still a cage of glass, letting you see out but never enjoy the fun for yourself. Who has time for that?"
You went the above smug route because you must, you write for the industry and must tote the line. If you weren't trapped in their box and was an actual free thinker you would call the industry out on its inability to actually evolve and allow their products to stand on their own and not need to appropriate existing labels.
What you did is the equivalent of saying that MP3 players should be called 8-track/cassette/CD players because they play music and did it while attempting to make anyone that doesn't agree sound as if they are somehow against change itself when the topic actually has nothing to do with if a person thinks a game is good or not...this is about the genre its being tagged with.
Evolved games require EVOLVED GENRE NAMES...gaming is not some creation that lives outside reality that gets treated special, every other market (outside of laptops now thanks to MSFT) all receive new names for new product inventions, do the same for gaming.
I mean the LEAST you could have done was argue that the RPG genre needs to be expanded to include a few more sub-genres to allow newer styles of gameplay, that it perhaps it was time to expand the Turn-Based RPG, Action RPG, Tactical RPG and MMORPG to include HurrDurrRPG and DurpRPG...but nope, lets redefine what RPG means so things that are not it can be called it!
If anyone is in a prison of nostalgia, its the person that cannot come up with anything new and clings to old labels to feel safe...doh!
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Roleplaying in real life is acting characters out.
Roleplaying in D&D gaming is exactly what it's name implys, it is where things are decided by a random or given roll of the dice, usually stats versus one to one action. Making choices and playing characters were a given.
Roleplaying the video game genre no longer can be confined to one genre. The further it gets from imagination and having to act out the roles ourselves the further the original definition of it is scattered.
TLDR: The closest way to nail rpg in a few words is "Stat Simulation of real world situations in a make believe universe". Sure other games can add light stat progressions but unless the foundations of it are engulfed in it, tis not a real rpg.
There is no need to make up new names when old ones can be adapted. There is no integrity in a constantly evolving genre. Why confuse it ? The words Roleplaying game can be used to describe any game that offers character development why do we have to create a new name. The games that have character development fall within it.
You reject the article outright and then use... Super Mario Brothers and Sonic as your examples? The "BS being spewed here" has literally nothing to do with your comment. Before you criticize someone else for "poor reading skills," you should probably make sure you didn't miss the point of the article completely.
Short term memory issues as well?
"I, and this column, identify RPGs to cover like this: An RPG is a game that focuses on the development of a main character, created or provided, to a substantial degree, and provides the player efficacy in their development. This can be through meaningful decisions, through dialogue or skill trees, or the meaningful choices on the journey through gameplay. It can include action, shooting, climbing, racing, or any outer-genre staple, but at least one main focus must remain on building that character (or multiples) and empowering the player to shape their role on that path"
Which when applied using your logic can include a plumber that runs, jumps and climbs that can gather power-ups at key moments to empower the player and shape their role on that path that if gone without would make the journey difficult and some fights impossible.
You have a clear character in Mario, a plumber, with a story that progresses throughout the game. The game has items to be gathered for more lives thus extending the game as well as various other items that give plenty of benefits/powers to be used.
Its an appropriation of a genre name because of pure laziness of its creators to create a new name for a new genre and you latch onto it...because.
And if you must know why I take issue its because of what followed the above "What I knew an RPG to be when I was 10 doesn't have to be what I know it as now. And really, who would want it to be? A prison of nostalgia is still a cage of glass, letting you see out but never enjoy the fun for yourself. Who has time for that?"
You went the above smug route because you must, you write for the industry and must tote the line. If you weren't trapped in their box and was an actual free thinker you would call the industry out on its inability to actually evolve and allow their products to stand on their own and not need to appropriate existing labels.
What you did is the equivalent of saying that MP3 players should be called 8-track/cassette/CD players because they play music and did it while attempting to make anyone that doesn't agree sound as if they are somehow against change itself when the topic actually has nothing to do with if a person thinks a game is good or not...this is about the genre its being tagged with.
Evolved games require EVOLVED GENRE NAMES...gaming is not some creation that lives outside reality that gets treated special, every other market (outside of laptops now thanks to MSFT) all receive new names for new product inventions, do the same for gaming.
I mean the LEAST you could have done was argue that the RPG genre needs to be expanded to include a few more sub-genres to allow newer styles of gameplay, that it perhaps it was time to expand the Turn-Based RPG, Action RPG, Tactical RPG and MMORPG to include HurrDurrRPG and DurpRPG...but nope, lets redefine what RPG means so things that are not it can be called it!
If anyone is in a prison of nostalgia, its the person that cannot come up with anything new and clings to old labels to feel safe...doh!
I agree with JJ here.
It's a bit odd that gaming somehow follows different rules than how we, as humans, use taxonomy to categorize and label everything for common understanding, but for whatever reason video games shouldn't follow this? And no, before someone goes with some crazy tangent about biological species and scientific taxonomies, I'm even talking about things as simple as other entertainment products - movies, books, music. They have defined genres even though we often see quite a significant amount of variance found within any given movie.
A thriller might be filled to the brim with action scenes, but it'll still be labeled a thriller.
Labels may seem arbitrary and I can see how it sounds like some of us are whining for the sake of it. But labels do serve purpose. Firstly, they inform, they tell us where something falls within the greater scope of it's type and how we might be able to compare and comprehend what we're looking at. More importantly, it sets expectations. When something is labeled a certain way it automatically illicits ideas of what it should contain in order to fulfill it's description, so you label something as an action game it needs to succeed as such because that's what people will be anticipating.
Do things change and evolve? Sure, but again, we have the capacity to generate new terminology or set qualifying attributes to something to communicate a more accurate representation of what we're talking about.
Kinda like how MOBA's came to be. They firmly fall under the RTS umbrella - Dota was even created within the map editor of the Warcraft 3 RTS, but we don't call them RTS games, we call the MOBA's. Same thing happened to ARPGs or "Hack'n'Slash" is Diablo 2 not an RPG? Yes, but because of the design of it's combat system it was granted the ARPG title to signify that it was more action focused than stock RPG's. "Hack'n'Slash" also serves to explain in just a couple words that the gameplay is more oriented at spamming attacks on mobs versus more traditional RPG's which tend to be a bit slower and killing mobs is something that is done to progress story rather than the purpose of playing. I could go on, but it's a silly discussion, which certainly won't be resolved.
The comments you see have nothing to do with RPG's. Your commenters are asking why a NON-MMO is on a MMO gaming site. Your site is called, in case you can't remember or are unable to see the many links on your own page, MMORPG.com. The MMO is in question, not the RPG.
Those commenters are questioning why this website sold out. Covering games that aren't MMO's. Putting half naked, classless game ads on your page for months on end. Hiring writers to tell lies and spread misinformation about the site that they are working for.
The answer is easy. Money. You don't have a single explanation that makes sense that will result in a different answer. So how about we stop lying to everyone? This article is just a poor attempt at deflecting the real issue.
At least grow some balls and admit it. We aren't as stupid as you think.
Comments
???????????????????????????????????
from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing#Role-playing_games):
"Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behaviour to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role."
So I am kind of at a loss as to what distinction you are making here. Role-playing is playing a role.
+2
"A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term[1] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged. A more formal term is equivocation.
Weasel words can be used in advertising and in political statements, where encouraging the audience to develop a misleading impression of what was said can lead to advantages, at least in the short term (in the longer term, systematic deception is likely to be identified, with a loss of trust in the speaker)."
For me at least FlyByNight has passed the event horizon and I place no value in anything he says.
Everything is nothing.
Must agree with this like the other person in this thread lol
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Nailed it.
The recent pervasive attempts at "redefining" game labels and genre's has more to do with marketing and sales targets than anything else. If you can convince (or fool) the gaming public that your game is both an RPG and a FPS, you've just effectively doubled the potential sales...
I've played RTS games where units gain experience and unlock special abilities at higher ranks. So RTS = RPG ?
Is it logical to expect MOBA news and reviews on a website called "MMORPG.COM" ?
MMORPG.COM was born in an age when the genre it served was crystal clear and well-defined. But the site name has become an unfortunate "millstone around their necks".
The nature of online gaming has changed and broadened significantly. But this website also needs to "stay current" as well as growing its revenue. The broader its coverage of games becomes, the bigger the audience it will (hopefully) attract. More page views leads to more revenue for the site. So I can kind of understand why the staff will encourage a "blurring of the lines", because it justifies their increasing coverage of things not strictly classed as "MMORPG's".
This article is pure cancer and contributes to the entire genre declining in the games themselves and the media surrounding them. The genre and the media is already in a really bad state because of the last decade of cancer; micro transactions, WoW clones with a twist, calling things mmo's that arnt, media reviews being paid for, early access, alpha/beta's that are no more than a marketing tool, ect.
We are in the last days if this current status quo continues. Think about that before you post complete and utter tripe next time you insufferable sell out.
If you are saying people like to complain just for the sake of complaining, than I agree.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
Most MMORPG's have never really involved much RPG.
RPG is expensive, in terms of art and writing and staffing and support and creativity. The less of this nonsense we can get away not paying for, the better, from a commercial POV.
And honestly, the micro-segment of customers who are actually interested in playing a "real" RPG is vanishingly small, and will not pay the bills.
When people talk about RPG in video games you can generally lump those talks into 2 groups.
1) Story. Things like the the ability for the characters choices to affect the world, and the outcome of the story.
2) Character building. Pen and paper RPG, D&D, the big daddy of RPGs had a variety of systems around choosing stats, abilities, classes, etc... and it had features like experience points and leveling up that became the norm for RPG video games.(not exactly the same as D&D but in the same spirit).
1 has never really been done successfully in an MMORPG. So to consider this an MMORPG feature doesn't make a lot of sense. Story by itself is not an RPG feature, well at least not a feature exclusive to RPGs. Games like Bioshock(which I loved) have some RPG(character building) features but honestly the game is more of an interactive movie than an RPG.
2 is what we see a lot of now in other genres now, FPS, racing, etc... but these are features that were born in RPG games. That doesn't mean they are no longer RPG features. That is silly. An action game with some driving features doesn't mean driving games no longer exist. If games want to include more and more RPG(character building) features in their games, it simply means that players want more of these features in their games. When you see MMORPGs including less and less of them(like WoW which pretty much has very little RPG left in it) it makes me wonder what the hell they are thinking.
Key word reasonable.Another key word >>>ROLE.
We have seen games for whatever reason,likely they just suck at making a ROLE playing game,but they have tried to remove the ROLE from a rpg,that is just ludacris.
Geesh even as little kids we used to role play on the street,pretending we were Wayne Gretzky playing street hockey.Not ONCE did we ever think we needed to change what hockey was,it always remained the same.However you get those just like in gaming who say ,well that's boring and defense is boring and low scores is boring,we need to change it to make it more exciting.To those i say take a look at Soccer,it's been the same way for 100 years,you either like it or you don't,changing it just changes what it is suppose to be.
To that i have always said likely more than 50% of rpg players do not belong in a rpg,they do not want a world ,they want an instant level and end game gear.So they do not want to play a ROLE in a game,simply give me levels as fast as yo ucan and i want the best loot the game has to offer.
Now you think if you picked some legendary person to role play,they would be thinking,.oh yes i need to step on that new territory it gives me free experience,no it is one of the most retarded rpg ideas i have ever seen.It has absolutely NOTHING to do with role playing.
Point is if you don't like role playing in a game,look for something else,quit trying to change rpg's into something that fits your need.
As to the MMO aspect in the titles name.It is like calling your sports team a team with only one player on it,NO it is not a team just because you say it is.That si what dvs are doing,designing SOLO games and calling them MMO's.You can't say your game is a MMO if it does not perform as one,soling and lobby game play is NOT MMO,game play.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If you dont know the difference and you need to refer to Wikpedia , you dont and wont know the differnece..
RPG = ROLE PLAYING game
Any game that you take on a role.
But, for some reason, here at MMORPG, people have injected so many other things into that simple meaning, that it means nothing now.
To me...you take on a roll and progress said roll. Which is why if you look at the old school gaming sites, there are so many different styles there. Because there are so many ways to RPG!
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Actually I think you are putting too much emphasis on the word "Role". You play a role in most games. While you also play a role in an RPG VIDEO GAME, that was never what differentiated it from other games.
The old RPG VIDEO GAMES were modeled on RPG pen and paper games. You played a role in just about any video game you could pick up. What differentiated RPG VIDEO GAMES are thing like rolling up a character, leveling up, improving statistics, and yes gear like the good ol' +1 longsword, story with a sense of freedom and the ability to choose your path(although generally extremely limited in video games). That is where they took the name for the genre from not the "Role" part because even though that is present it has also been present in every other video game.
When you talk about RP as in "speaking in character" etc, that really never had anything to do with single player RPG video games for obvious reasons(you aren't actually talking to anybody) , and in multi-player RPG video games it has always been an extremely minor niche in the genre.
I reject this article outright as I will NEVER consider Super Mario Bros or Sonic The Hedgehog side-scrollers a RPG...because that is the BS being spewed here. Role-Playing is more than just playing a role because you are playing a role in PONG...the role of the bar.
This is more pandering to gaming companies to excuse their using the wrong labels to sell their games.
If a game is cross genre, call it that.
If a game is a new genre, come up with a new name.
Stop abusing words for the sake of advertising and let your game stand on its own merits.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
@JJ82 That is not what this article is saying at all, or even close to it. The comments here are taking a course of their own, and fair enough, but it should be noted for anyone coming along that I, nor anyone other than readers, have said that an RPG is so broad as people are suggesting.
I do want to clarify, however, that the column isn't a manifesto on covering anything that could remotely be called an RPG. Certain games are clear, you know what they're an RPG from a million yard glance. Others, where they may be cross-genre are less so, but still worth discussing as a community. This article lays put the loose guidelines on what is in and out. The definition I have laid out, bolded and underlined, rules out games that are clearly more action, shooter, whatever, from being included. I will not be writing about Battlefield, for example, just because you level up a soldier.
That said, if your own perceptions are so limited that you can't see how a game can occupy two genres at once - and have a depth of design beyond turn-based dungeon crawling - then I sense the future of gaming is going to be unkind to you. If, like is being intimated by some commenters here, I did not acknowledge the evolution of the genre, games like Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Witcher 2/3, and Borderlands would be ruled out because they are also heavily into the action and shooter genres.
Actually, this topic is not about MMORPGs at all. Like, even a little bit. Second, I struggle to understand how you could think MMORPG is a sufficient term to encompass all of the many games that have released over the last 20 years. You would agree that Ultima Online and Neverwinter are different enough to warrant some variation, yes? Star Wars Galaxies and Wizard101? If you think evolving terms to meet actual game releases has no real world relevance, you're living in a much simpler reality than I am. You can disagree but the discussion is still worth having.
Also, the whole "paid article" thing is a stretch since this article wasn't about any one game (it's also entirely untrue, but I won't convince you of that). I'll say this much though, if I could collect a check every time I mentioned a dev's game, I'd be writing a whole lot more top ten lists. A few months into a "top 500" and I could retire. But, sadly, that comment has "zero real world relevance."
Oh great, a columnist that has poor reading skills.
How quaint.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
I'll clarify here that only the first part of my comment was directed at you. The rest was speaking to the larger conversation, so I apologize if you took that personally.
That said, my reply was prompted by the first part of your comment, which you snipped.
You reject the article outright and then use... Super Mario Brothers and Sonic as your examples? The "BS being spewed here" has literally nothing to do with your comment. Before you criticize someone else for "poor reading skills," you should probably make sure you didn't miss the point of the article completely.
I have to agree with OP's "assertion that Dying Light deserves to be talked about as an RPG. It isn’t even a question." I have seen many speak against it but not one really explained the WHY! Only thing I could think of could be "moral choices" as there are none in Dying Light. Compared to for example DA:I. As that's to me a more traditional old school mix with next gen RPG. It's not that I consider Dying Light a RPG as I see it as a Survivel Open World Game. But considering what I want from a RPG I sure as hell comes close.
I have my personal criteria that I don't feel should nor needs to match that of the many.
Have a humanoid character, doesn't really matter what type of race/species if alien aslong I feel connected towards the character I am playing.
Place that character in a believable world where your actions have meaning and conseqence in that gameworld. But those conseqence's need to be felt or seen through out your journey.
It should be fun playing the game even without running the mainstory. Sort of let's say just fooling around. Then again "fun" is very subjective. Take Dying Light for example. I often find myself going off route, seeing something I want to explore, find items or plain simple curious what's inside that building, seeing if I can help that stranger. Overall the gameworld feels alive/dead ehh zombies :P
I do disgree with many that said "well in any game you play a role" while that's true to a extend I don't feel it fits the RPG segment. Because many genre's do not have persistant world which to me is key to having a game either be RPG or have RPG element. Take race games, sure there is a world you race in, you progress. But your not really progressing if you just drive around? you need to race right? Same with many FPS games, sure you play the role of a soldier but it's done in a linear fashion, your enemy's stay dead, you can go back to places or doing so would just show the battlefield you left behind when won. If you want a new experiance you need to continue the linear path to see change's.
RPG's in general have changed/evolved allot. Then again in the early day's we also have lots of different type of "RPG's" Even in the early 80's it wasn't really clear what was or was not a RPG even if the gamecompany promoted their game RPG. Many seem to have forgetten this it seems.
....
Sorry Friday night = heiniken night :P
Short term memory issues as well?
"I, and this column, identify RPGs to cover like this: An RPG is a game that focuses on the development of a main character, created or provided, to a substantial degree, and provides the player efficacy in their development. This can be through meaningful decisions, through dialogue or skill trees, or the meaningful choices on the journey through gameplay. It can include action, shooting, climbing, racing, or any outer-genre staple, but at least one main focus must remain on building that character (or multiples) and empowering the player to shape their role on that path"
Which when applied using your logic can include a plumber that runs, jumps and climbs that can gather power-ups at key moments to empower the player and shape their role on that path that if gone without would make the journey difficult and some fights impossible.
You have a clear character in Mario, a plumber, with a story that progresses throughout the game. The game has items to be gathered for more lives thus extending the game as well as various other items that give plenty of benefits/powers to be used.
Its an appropriation of a genre name because of pure laziness of its creators to create a new name for a new genre and you latch onto it...because.
And if you must know why I take issue its because of what followed the above "What I knew an RPG to be when I was 10 doesn't have to be what I know it as now. And really, who would want it to be? A prison of nostalgia is still a cage of glass, letting you see out but never enjoy the fun for yourself. Who has time for that?"
You went the above smug route because you must, you write for the industry and must tote the line. If you weren't trapped in their box and was an actual free thinker you would call the industry out on its inability to actually evolve and allow their products to stand on their own and not need to appropriate existing labels.
What you did is the equivalent of saying that MP3 players should be called 8-track/cassette/CD players because they play music and did it while attempting to make anyone that doesn't agree sound as if they are somehow against change itself when the topic actually has nothing to do with if a person thinks a game is good or not...this is about the genre its being tagged with.
Evolved games require EVOLVED GENRE NAMES...gaming is not some creation that lives outside reality that gets treated special, every other market (outside of laptops now thanks to MSFT) all receive new names for new product inventions, do the same for gaming.
I mean the LEAST you could have done was argue that the RPG genre needs to be expanded to include a few more sub-genres to allow newer styles of gameplay, that it perhaps it was time to expand the Turn-Based RPG, Action RPG, Tactical RPG and MMORPG to include HurrDurrRPG and DurpRPG...but nope, lets redefine what RPG means so things that are not it can be called it!
If anyone is in a prison of nostalgia, its the person that cannot come up with anything new and clings to old labels to feel safe...doh!
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Roleplaying in real life is acting characters out.
Roleplaying in D&D gaming is exactly what it's name implys, it is where things are decided by a random or given roll of the dice, usually stats versus one to one action. Making choices and playing characters were a given.
Roleplaying the video game genre no longer can be confined to one genre. The further it gets from imagination and having to act out the roles ourselves the further the original definition of it is scattered.
TLDR: The closest way to nail rpg in a few words is "Stat Simulation of real world situations in a make believe universe". Sure other games can add light stat progressions but unless the foundations of it are engulfed in it, tis not a real rpg.
I agree with JJ here.
It's a bit odd that gaming somehow follows different rules than how we, as humans, use taxonomy to categorize and label everything for common understanding, but for whatever reason video games shouldn't follow this? And no, before someone goes with some crazy tangent about biological species and scientific taxonomies, I'm even talking about things as simple as other entertainment products - movies, books, music. They have defined genres even though we often see quite a significant amount of variance found within any given movie.
A thriller might be filled to the brim with action scenes, but it'll still be labeled a thriller.
Labels may seem arbitrary and I can see how it sounds like some of us are whining for the sake of it. But labels do serve purpose. Firstly, they inform, they tell us where something falls within the greater scope of it's type and how we might be able to compare and comprehend what we're looking at. More importantly, it sets expectations. When something is labeled a certain way it automatically illicits ideas of what it should contain in order to fulfill it's description, so you label something as an action game it needs to succeed as such because that's what people will be anticipating.
Do things change and evolve? Sure, but again, we have the capacity to generate new terminology or set qualifying attributes to something to communicate a more accurate representation of what we're talking about.
Kinda like how MOBA's came to be. They firmly fall under the RTS umbrella - Dota was even created within the map editor of the Warcraft 3 RTS, but we don't call them RTS games, we call the MOBA's. Same thing happened to ARPGs or "Hack'n'Slash" is Diablo 2 not an RPG? Yes, but because of the design of it's combat system it was granted the ARPG title to signify that it was more action focused than stock RPG's. "Hack'n'Slash" also serves to explain in just a couple words that the gameplay is more oriented at spamming attacks on mobs versus more traditional RPG's which tend to be a bit slower and killing mobs is something that is done to progress story rather than the purpose of playing. I could go on, but it's a silly discussion, which certainly won't be resolved.
Your article is meaningless because it's a lie.
The comments you see have nothing to do with RPG's. Your commenters are asking why a NON-MMO is on a MMO gaming site. Your site is called, in case you can't remember or are unable to see the many links on your own page, MMORPG.com. The MMO is in question, not the RPG.
Those commenters are questioning why this website sold out. Covering games that aren't MMO's. Putting half naked, classless game ads on your page for months on end. Hiring writers to tell lies and spread misinformation about the site that they are working for.
The answer is easy. Money. You don't have a single explanation that makes sense that will result in a different answer. So how about we stop lying to everyone? This article is just a poor attempt at deflecting the real issue.
At least grow some balls and admit it. We aren't as stupid as you think.