What would you consider to be horizontal progression? If you go by the literal definition there can not be horizontal progression that isn't debatable. Horizontal progression is more an idiom than anything. Just like its raining cats and dogs doesn't mean its literally raining cats and dogs.
Horizontal progression is generally shallow vertical progression with no levels or hard power gaps or plateaus. Meaning any power gains are negligible that a veteran player is If you're going for literal definition arguablely any power gain is vertical progression if you're using a literal definition.
Even what's an RPG is an arguable. There is more vertical progression and roleplaying directed by Spike Lee in NBA2K16 mycareer than many RPGs.
What on earth....
His claim was "You can still be an RPG without vertical progression." When I say there's zero evidence of an RPG which lacks vertical progression I'm not nitpicking about the trivial amount of vertical progression that exists in horizontal progression (because flexibility is a form of power). What I'm saying is that there are literally zero RPGs without the regular clear-and-obvious form of vertical progression.
Without evidence, my point stands: you can't be an RPG without vertical progression.
The definition of RPG isn't 'arguable'. The wikipedia page for Zelda unambiguously calls the game an action-adventure. Role-playing elements are mentioned, but most games have role-playing elements nowadays and most games are not called RPGs. A game's genre is a broad label describing its core gameplay, so if a game is mostly a FPS (Deus Ex) it's called an FPS not an RPG.
[mod edit]
I do think there are players who are ignorant on the subject of RPGs. Say gamers ask for a mmoRPG with twitchy combat added to it. There will be a portion of idiots who will play the game and believe that all "true mmoRPGs" are twitchy. Just like there are idiots who think action games with some role-playing elements means that RPGs are action games due to those games. You can't argue with them.
[mod edit]
Define horizontal progression or what game qualifies as horizontal progression that has power gains that aren't debatable as vertical.
ironically, if I'm right there is no mention of rpg in the opening. just plain and simple "mmo".
to which many of us attached some desired features such as no vertical progression..something that imho is quite autodefining: anything that gives an advantage ingame or gives access to desired and much "profitable" content.
You say it's impossible to call a game an RPG without vertical progression, I propose a theoretical experiment.
Let's take the game World of Warcraft, one of the most well known MMORPGs at the moment.
Let's imagine that leveling up in WoW only unlocked new class skills and abilities, but your base health, stats and damage remained the same, through levels 1 to 100.
Let's also imagine that gear, while providing stat upgrades, would also give you stat degrades as a tradeoff. In such a way that you can increase your damage, but at the cost of lower defense, or something, etc.
Additionally, all the monsters and such are of course rebalanced to fit this.
And now, in theory, you could start a level one character and run all the way to the outlands and start questing there if you wanted.
If you did that, and left everything else as it is. Would the game no longer be an RPG?
EDIT: Alternatively is League of Legends an RPG with its vertical progression through levels, runes and masteries?
A game's genre is defined through its core gameplay. League of Legends' core gameplay isn't that of an RPG, but that of a MOBA. The reason it's called a MOBA is it shares all of the core design traits of a MOBA.
The design traits of an RPG are story, progression, and stats-driven combat. If you remove progression, a game won't share all of the core traits of an RPG.
That said, I'm not actually calling it impossible. My actual stance is closer to my earlier post which simply challenges the lack of evidence: "Name an RPG that has zero vertical progression." If you have evidence of a game widely considered an RPG which completely lacks vertical progression, by all means post it. Don't just theorize about it, post an actual game actually considered an RPG by the masses. Because I'm pretty sure your WOW example would be given a name like "adventure game" or something, but I'm also pretty sure nobody would make a game that just chopped off one of the core pillars of RPG design, without creating something distinct to fill that void.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Those two sentances are two different things and two different arguments: "you can't be an RPG without vertical progression." " There is zero evidence of an RPG without vertical progression" yes I am summarizing here.
They are actually not arguing the same thing.
The first sentence is making an absolute statement, it is also a theoretical statement which can only be proven if there is a absolute definition of RPG. There isn't. The proof is that people have been arguing about whether RPG means vertical progression or not for decades.
The second one may be absolutely true, but it doesn't belie the position that it may be possble to make an RPG without it. Again just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it couldn't be done.
Now if the first statement is true then the 2nd of course is also true. The reverse is not also true though. Again the 2nd may be true blah blah, see above.
Agreed.
The agnosticism is absolutely true (without evidence, his claim is baseless).
The atheism just feels extremely likely to be true (making completely baseless claims very frequently turns out to be wrong).
Will fix the old post.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
haha NOTHING in life is fact just because Wikipedia says so. Leveling is just WRONG and has no plausible bearing on a character or ROLE. Yes it does come close to representing a rating of a character but as i said,it is the WRONG way to do it.
The only plausible idea i can think of that is close to a LEVEL rating would be ranks such as Sergeant...General...rookie...pro but we almost never use numbers such as a level number,other than perhaps first class and second class.
Other than perhaps medals or stripes ,you look at someone in life,you have NO IDEA what they are capable of.Once they have on a uniform,then you have a good idea of that type character role.When someone has SKILL it is not a number it is merely a skill set and each person is different with their set of skills.You don't superficially label skills with a number.Example a sword of 10 means the same thing but in realistic terms ,i might be great with a powerful swing but not very agile or accurate.I might be better defensively with a sword than offensively.I might be great at using a sword versus a slow Bear but not so good trying to hit a fast rabbit with one.
We should simply have skills to learn and to improve.As seen in a game like EQ2 for example,we could even have language skills to learn.
The way games are being designed,we instead see terrible ideas like the weapon itself determines how good or skilled you are and how much damage you can do.Even when comes to armor,there should be other factors like speed/avoidance and more importantly TYPES of damage.
Bottom line is MOST game designs make zero sense and most are designed with almost no depth or plausible realism,just people with some ideas they think would be cool to put in a game.IMO ANY idea is ok but NOT when put into a role playing game,keep goofy ideas for some puzzle game or something not related to a rpg.
Wikipedia isn't what's making the fact a fact. The fact simply is, as a result of the observable reality we live in. Wikipedia simply acts as a record of that fact (the fact that Zelda isn't an RPG).
Calling leveling "wrong" is pure subjective nonsense because leveling is a popular and functional game mechanic. Additionally "wrong" is off-topic because we're not discussing whether the design is right or wrong, simply pointing out that games aren't called RPGs without vertical progression.
But yes, as an aside your interest in RPGs makes absolutely zero sense if realism is your paramount concern. It's more than a little silly that you'd even bother with a forum for a genre (MMORPGs, which are RPGs) which apparently conflicts with your tastes.
You could be making far better decisions than you are.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Define horizontal progression or what game qualifies as horizontal progression that has power gains that aren't debatable as vertical.
Define what an RPG is Mr. logical.
RPGs are built on the core pillars of story, vertical progression, and stats-driven combat. That's their definition, because it adequately frames all the games you find in this list. (Genres don't get more detailed than that; they're a broad category, not super specific.)
It also does an adequate job of distinguishing non-RPGs, since CoD's combat isn't stats-driven, it's predominantly driven by twitch skill. With games that blur the line somewhat like Mass Effect, the strong emphasis on story (which a typical shooter lacks) and the clear progression elements which drive combat help the game to clearly fit RPG more than FPS.
Instead of fixating on horizontal progression, maybe you should start by naming one game considered an RPG which doesn't have vertical progression (meaning just the non-horizontal forms of vertical progression).
Because if you can't name one game, then the point you're trying to make by repeatedly bringing up horizontal progression will be meaningless.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You say it's impossible to call a game an RPG without vertical progression, I propose a theoretical experiment.
Let's take the game World of Warcraft, one of the most well known MMORPGs at the moment.
Let's imagine that leveling up in WoW only unlocked new class skills and abilities, but your base health, stats and damage remained the same, through levels 1 to 100.
Let's also imagine that gear, while providing stat upgrades, would also give you stat degrades as a tradeoff. In such a way that you can increase your damage, but at the cost of lower defense, or something, etc.
Additionally, all the monsters and such are of course rebalanced to fit this.
And now, in theory, you could start a level one character and run all the way to the outlands and start questing there if you wanted.
If you did that, and left everything else as it is. Would the game no longer be an RPG?
EDIT: Alternatively is League of Legends an RPG with its vertical progression through levels, runes and masteries?
A game's genre is defined through its core gameplay. League of Legends' core gameplay isn't that of an RPG, but that of a MOBA. The reason it's called a MOBA is it shares all of the core design traits of a MOBA.
The design traits of an RPG are story, progression, and stats-driven combat. If you remove progression, a game won't share all of the core traits of an RPG.
That said, I'm not actually calling it impossible. My actual stance is closer to my earlier post which simply challenges the lack of evidence: "Name an RPG that has zero vertical progression." If you have evidence of a game widely considered an RPG which completely lacks vertical progression, by all means post it. Don't just theorize about it, post an actual game actually considered an RPG by the masses. Because I'm pretty sure your WOW example would be given a name like "adventure game" or something, but I'm also pretty sure nobody would make a game that just chopped off one of the core pillars of RPG design, without creating something distinct to fill that void.
Almost no games literally has zero vertical progression. Any upgrade is essentially vertical progression.
Dynasty Warriors, NBA 2K16, Darksiders, GTA San Andreas, and many many other games have story, progression and stat driven combat.
As I said before Horizontal Progression is philosophy of limited vertical progression and power gaps.
There HAS BEEN (Still is I guess) several attempts to adress these issues you talk about..
In EQ2 for example you could mentor a characther, what it did was a highleveled characther basically deleveled to an appropriate level of your friend to enyoy the content together.
Define horizontal progression or what game qualifies as horizontal progression that has power gains that aren't debatable as vertical.
Define what an RPG is Mr. logical.
RPGs are built on the core pillars of story, vertical progression, and stats-driven combat. That's their definition, because it adequately frames all the games you find in this list. (Genres don't get more detailed than that; they're a broad category, not super specific.)
It also does an adequate job of distinguishing non-RPGs, since CoD's combat isn't stats-driven, it's predominantly driven by twitch skill. With games that blur the line somewhat like Mass Effect, the strong emphasis on story (which a typical shooter lacks) and the clear progression elements which drive combat help the game to clearly fit RPG more than FPS.
Instead of fixating on horizontal progression, maybe you should start by naming one game considered an RPG which doesn't have vertical progression (meaning just the non-horizontal forms of vertical progression).
Because if you can't name one game, then the point you're trying to make by repeatedly bringing up horizontal progression will be meaningless.
Almost no game has no vertical progression. The nature of games is to upgrade which is vertical progression. Vast vertical progression like WoW there are plenty without.
As I said horizontal progression is a concept of minimal vertical progression and power gains.
There HAS BEEN (Still is I guess) several attempts to adress these issues you talk about..
In EQ2 for example you could mentor a characther, what it did was a highleveled characther basically deleveled to an appropriate level of your friend to enyoy the content together.
I am very aware of this system. There was a girl I met on a dating site several years ago that was really into EQ2 so I decided to give it a shot. She tried mentoring me with her main but the system wasn't done very well and she was still able to one shot everything. She ending up making a new character just so we could play together.
I am very aware of this system. There was a girl I met on a dating site several years ago that was really into EQ2 so I decided to give it a shot. She tried mentoring me with her main but the system wasn't done very well and she was still able to one shot everything. She ending up making a new character just so we could play together.
I haven't seen a game yet that get the autoleveling right. The sidekick up option CoH had was pretty good. You weren't as powerful as a character of the same level, but you have your mentor there. It was all in the name
Define horizontal progression or what game qualifies as horizontal progression that has power gains that aren't debatable as vertical.
Define what an RPG is Mr. logical.
RPGs are built on the core pillars of story, vertical progression, and stats-driven combat. That's their definition, because it adequately frames all the games you find in this list. (Genres don't get more detailed than that; they're a broad category, not super specific.)
It also does an adequate job of distinguishing non-RPGs, since CoD's combat isn't stats-driven, it's predominantly driven by twitch skill. With games that blur the line somewhat like Mass Effect, the strong emphasis on story (which a typical shooter lacks) and the clear progression elements which drive combat help the game to clearly fit RPG more than FPS.
Instead of fixating on horizontal progression, maybe you should start by naming one game considered an RPG which doesn't have vertical progression (meaning just the non-horizontal forms of vertical progression).
Because if you can't name one game, then the point you're trying to make by repeatedly bringing up horizontal progression will be meaningless.
So instead of acknowledge that horizontal progression may very well be a plausible mechanic given proper implementation, you would rather go on a crusade and pose one of the most inane questions possible that fails to counterpoint or prove any rational argument, for the sake of preserving what exactly?
If anything is meaningless, it's what you just tried to pull right here.
As venge already stated, in the post you already responded to no less, the notion that something can't be done because there isn't significant evidence of it existing in the past is an entirely irrational stance. If we were to agree with your opinion, then we would have to then agree that all progress is somehow wrong, and that is a wholly irrational position to take.
Not to mention if anyone actually clicks and peruses the linked wiki page of RPG games we can see that there actually is a good amount of games utilizing progression beyond just vertical.
Point being though, even if we took the rest of the claim to be held true then your core argument is still false.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Almost no games literally has zero vertical progression. Any upgrade is essentially vertical progression.
Dynasty Warriors, NBA 2K16, Darksiders, GTA San Andreas, and many many other games have story, progression and stat driven combat.
As I said before Horizontal Progression is philosophy of limited vertical progression and power gaps.
Dynasty warriors is most heavily characterized by its action combat than its progression/stats, which makes it an action game (or hack and slash). Darksiders is similar.
NBA most heavily characterized by being the sport of basketball, which makes it a sport game.
GTA is an action-adventure game, since it's far more characterized by its action gameplay than its progression and stats-driven combat elements.
Is the reason that you're bringing up horizontal progression (which has little to do with the discussion) that you agree with me that there isn't any evidence of RPGs without vertical progression? You seem bizarrely fixated on horizontal progression, which seems to have zero context t what you're replying to.
I mean you admit that almost no games completely lack vertical progression, so maybe that indicates you do agree with me that his statement was baseless?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This is "the problem". This is YOUR PROBLEM. The SOLUTION to YOUR PROBLEM is to go play something that you like.
"So What? If You Want Fairness Why Not Play an FPS/MOBA/Whatever...
MMOs are more than stat progression. MMOs are massive worlds that offer chances to explore the world, randomly encounter other players but peacefully, and in random encounter Open World PvP. MMOs can feature meaningful crafting, and a greater variety of content. MMOs give you a chance to make a mark on a world inhabited by real players. Some MMOs even have deep politics with player created factions. Some people love and desire to take part in many or all of these things without being subjected to massive power disparities based on level and gear."
Unfortunately, with 90% of MMO's essentially being WoW and the very few well made original MMO's not addressing this problem... there's not really anywhere to turn atm. Unless you know of a game I don't?
I agree, MMO's shouldnt be fair at all. Life isnt fair nor should be games, we capitalize on our strengths and improve on our weaknesses. Wanting "fair" things is a Millennial ideal which is a really poor stance on life as we have seen with all the overly sensitive people that cry to no end.
Games like Shadowbane and Crowfall are games that show how well you play and know your characters, in games like that there tends to be little to no cookie cutting going on. More games like these would solve the issues of having to do 20 laps in Ironforge out of boredom.
Role-Playing Games games are characterized by the fact that they are about role-playing. I think the big part that makes a role-playing game a role-playing game for me is character customization. You get into the game set the character appearance and generally through progression you change your character to be the way you want it.
However I would again site the Original Guild Wars as proof that an RPG does not need progression. After your very quick progression to level 20 and max grade armor the game continues to allow you to work to customize your character but the vertical progression is completely over.
Suppose for a moment they started you at level 20 with max grade gear and all you're doing is hunting skills, doing quests, and building up cooler looking armor. You are still role-playing. There is still customization. Much deeper customization than offered in 90% of modern MMORPGs.
This is "the problem". This is YOUR PROBLEM. The SOLUTION to YOUR PROBLEM is to go play something that you like.
"So What? If You Want Fairness Why Not Play an FPS/MOBA/Whatever...
MMOs are more than stat progression. MMOs are massive worlds that offer chances to explore the world, randomly encounter other players but peacefully, and in random encounter Open World PvP. MMOs can feature meaningful crafting, and a greater variety of content. MMOs give you a chance to make a mark on a world inhabited by real players. Some MMOs even have deep politics with player created factions. Some people love and desire to take part in many or all of these things without being subjected to massive power disparities based on level and gear."
Unfortunately, with 90% of MMO's essentially being WoW and the very few well made original MMO's not addressing this problem... there's not really anywhere to turn atm. Unless you know of a game I don't?
I agree, MMO's shouldnt be fair at all. Life isnt fair nor should be games, we capitalize on our strengths and improve on our weaknesses. Wanting "fair" things is a Millennial ideal which is a really poor stance on life as we have seen with all the overly sensitive people that cry to no end.
Games like Shadowbane and Crowfall are games that show how well you play and know your characters, in games like that there tends to be little to no cookie cutting going on. More games like these would solve the issues of having to do 20 laps in Ironforge out of boredom.
Games like Shadowbane, Crowfall and Darkfall should absolutely be about how well you play and know your character. Crowfall uses EVE style progression that creates stat gaps between players without providing content.
Ultimately that's going to distract from how well you play and know your character and give needless advantages to players that have simply been playing longer.
As someone who already owns his account this advantage should work in my favor as I will have at least one character that will have the maximum XP it's possible to have in that game.
I would give that up in a heartbeat to see stat progression removed altogether and see Crowfall TRUELY be a game about player skill.
Almost no games literally has zero vertical progression. Any upgrade is essentially vertical progression.
Dynasty Warriors, NBA 2K16, Darksiders, GTA San Andreas, and many many other games have story, progression and stat driven combat.
As I said before Horizontal Progression is philosophy of limited vertical progression and power gaps.
Dynasty warriors is most heavily characterized by its action combat than its progression/stats, which makes it an action game (or hack and slash). Darksiders is similar.
NBA most heavily characterized by being the sport of basketball, which makes it a sport game.
GTA is an action-adventure game, since it's far more characterized by its action gameplay than its progression and stats-driven combat elements.
Is the reason that you're bringing up horizontal progression (which has little to do with the discussion) that you agree with me that there isn't any evidence of RPGs without vertical progression? You seem bizarrely fixated on horizontal progression, which seems to have zero context t what you're replying to.
I mean you admit that almost no games completely lack vertical progression, so maybe that indicates you do agree with me that his statement was baseless?
No again which I explained with idiom. Horizontal progression is basically anti theism to vast vertical progression. Its shallow progression with little power gap. Generally what we are talking about lack of levels and power gap which is what this topic is about. Generally what we talk about as leveling in MMORPG is bast vertical progression.
It's the reason why I asked you how do you define vertical or horizontal progression which you haven't.
And no those game outside of NBA2K which is sports driven are defined by the stats. Even GTA in that game was very stat driven as your driving, shooting, strengths, stamina, flying skills were gained through usage ot working out. It fits the point that even defining an RPG is hard. If it was fantasy it would be similar to Morrowind in progression.
Per the request of a few people on these boards I've started writing down some of the ideas I have for a game. These ideas are mainly idle fancy for the fun of it and I have no resources to actually build an MMO but I figured they would be pretty relevant to this debate as this game would feature very little vertical progression but would undeniably be an RPG:
@eldurian: seemingly i can't send you a pm; I'd like to know if you have found any mmo/coop pve game with the features we are discussing about (little to no vertical power progression), better if openworld and not necessarily rpg-ish
No again which I explained with idiom. Horizontal progression is basically anti theism to vast vertical progression. Its shallow progression with little power gap. Generally what we are talking about lack of levels and power gap which is what this topic is about. Generally what we talk about as leveling in MMORPG is bast vertical progression.
It's the reason why I asked you how do you define vertical or horizontal progression which you haven't.
And no those game outside of NBA2K which is sports driven are defined by the stats. Even GTA in that game was very stat driven as your driving, shooting, strengths, stamina, flying skills were gained through usage ot working out. It fits the point that even defining an RPG is hard. If it was fantasy it would be similar to Morrowind in progression.
Are you a bot?
Seriously, are you even responding to the discussion at hand?
Horizontal progression is off-topic. It's not relevant.
Someone wrongly said "You can still be an RPG without vertical progression."
I corrected them, pointing out that there isn't actually evidence of RPGs without vertical progression. Either you agree with that (which is basically the entirety of what I'm saying in this part of the thread) or you don't. It's that simple.
Horizontal progression doesn't even enter into it. The trivial amount of vertical progression that horizontal progression provides (via flexibility, which is a form of power) is irrelevant. We're ignoring it, because unless you can show me an RPG that lacks vertical progression then it's irrelevant to make the distinction!
Games are defined by their primary characteristics. In GTA stat-based things aren't driving combat, the action elements are. So no, defining RPGs isn't hard: the primary characteristics of a game will best fit one genre over all others, and that is the game's genre.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No again which I explained with idiom. Horizontal progression is basically anti theism to vast vertical progression. Its shallow progression with little power gap. Generally what we are talking about lack of levels and power gap which is what this topic is about. Generally what we talk about as leveling in MMORPG is bast vertical progression.
It's the reason why I asked you how do you define vertical or horizontal progression which you haven't.
And no those game outside of NBA2K which is sports driven are defined by the stats. Even GTA in that game was very stat driven as your driving, shooting, strengths, stamina, flying skills were gained through usage ot working out. It fits the point that even defining an RPG is hard. If it was fantasy it would be similar to Morrowind in progression.
Are you a bot?
Seriously, are you even responding to the discussion at hand?
Horizontal progression is off-topic. It's not relevant.
Someone wrongly said "You can still be an RPG without vertical progression."
I corrected them, pointing out that there isn't actually evidence of RPGs without vertical progression. Either you agree with that (which is basically the entirety of what I'm saying in this part of the thread) or you don't. It's that simple.
Horizontal progression doesn't even enter into it. The trivial amount of vertical progression that horizontal progression provides (via flexibility, which is a form of power) is irrelevant. We're ignoring it, because unless you can show me an RPG that lacks vertical progression then it's irrelevant to make the distinction!
Games are defined by their primary characteristics. In GTA stat-based things aren't driving combat, the action elements are. So no, defining RPGs isn't hard: the primary characteristics of a game will best fit one genre over all others, and that is the game's genre.
Did you read the orginal post which is about not having vertical progession. By your own words you will have some vertical progression if you going by a literal definition of "upgrade." Guess what?!? If you have limited vertical progression and no power gap you have horizontal progression. So even if he didn't mention it it's what he is talking about.
Did you read the orginal post which is about not having vertical progession. By your own words you will have some vertical progression if you going by a literal definition of "upgrade." Guess what?!? If you have limited vertical progression and no power gap you have horizontal progression. So even if he didn't mention it it's what he is talking about.
Right, he posted "You can still be an RPG without vertical progression" (a post about not having vertical progression) to which I replied asking him to provide evidence of such a game, to which you replied by immediately veering offtrack into horizontal progression.
My point was simple and straightforward; it should have been such an obvious little detail that nobody bothered disputing it or responding to it. At most we should've seen what we did see: a non-RPG being mistakenly called an RPG, revealing the root of that other person's misunderstanding of the truth.
Apart from that, it's such a small detail that no further discussion should've been warranted (barring the presentation of evidence, but as we continue this discussion and still have zero evidence of an RPG without vertical progression that prospect grows dimmer by the post).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
@eldurian: seemingly i can't send you a pm; I'd like to know if you have found any mmo/coop pve game with the features we are discussing about (little to no vertical power progression), better if openworld and not necessarily rpg-ish
I would love to say yes but the answer is unfortunately no. The closest thing I have ever played was Freelancer, which while it did have a steep vertical power progression, the progression was over extremely fast. Unfortunately Freelancer is really showing it's age these days and I wouldn't recommend it anymore despite it being one of my favorite games ever.
The spiritual sequel to Freelancer is Star Citizen, which shares a vision and lead developer with Freelancer. So far it looks like there will be no leveling or character stats as a part of Star Citizen and that equipment won't be gated to it "You need to be level 50 to fly this ship." However there will be powerful ships with lifetime insurance policies suggesting that ships and equipment will create a certain amount of vertical progression even though there will be some loss of value upon their destruction.
One thing I am particularly excited about is the concept of multi-man ships which at least addresses my PvE complaints. For instance my main ship that I pre-purchased was a 5 man exploration vessel. Therefore I can go enjoy content with up to four of my friends and the fact that my ship will most likely be a vastly superior exploration ship to what they are usually flying won't matter because the 5 of us will all be crewing my vessel together.
However Star Citizen will be a long time coming. I don't expect to see a playable MMO for about two more years and I'm guessing that the first year or two of it will be bogged down with bugs. Definately a title to keep your eyes on if you have the patience to deal with the long development time and inevitably buggy release though.
You point is simply nonsense though. An RPG where you are progressing through the unlock of skills, stat rebalances, etc is still an RPG is if follows the fundamentals of an RPG.
You opinion of not liking something does not factor into that logic, and your vehemence that anything that does not reflect 100% your personal image of what something should be, is utterly meaningless to everything.
Besides which, we can repeat the point made that if you browse the wikipedia link you gave of all those RPGs listed, there's a lot of titles over time that have had minimal if any vertical progression. To quote the point on that;
"Put simply, if you actually crawl through that list of RPG titles, you would find early titles utilized minimal vertical progression if any and instead favored swaps. It was a very adventure driven RPG system back then as opposed to a power driven system.
This becomes more emphasized in the early sci-fi RPG titles that are listed because they focused more on the basis of the plot and the exploration for progression.
If your goal was to say that as computer RPGs continued to be produced they got more narrow in their creative scope and means of delivering content then you might have a point, but the idea that horizontal progression does not have a place or couldn't support an RPG as the primary mode of progression is simply false."
Glad you at least admit at the end there though that the argument you started was such a finite thing to even nitpick that it wasn't actually worth talking about. Almost as if it was pointless to say in the first place.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Did you read the orginal post which is about not having vertical progession.
Right, he posted "You can still be an RPG without vertical progression" (a post about not having vertical progression) to which I replied asking him to provide evidence of such a game, to which you replied by immediately veering offtrack into horizontal progression.
"Well, take a look at the original Guild Wars. A few days of hard play and you have your character at max level with max gear effectiveness. But there is so much game left after that point. You go around collecting new skills which are not inherently more powerful than the old ones, and cooler looking gear. Players still were motivated to go out and play past max level, and GW ended up being a wildly popular game despite the complete lack of an open world, any sandbox features whatsoever, or crafting. Features that could have made it even more compelling as a long term title."
Neither the words vertical nor horizontal progression were used in the original post because those are terms that Vermillion introduced me to through his useage of them in this topic. However the quote above is a direct reference to horizontal progression in a game in which I made it clear I had no issue with it.
The quote you made and attributed to me is also purely falsified. The original post was all about what would or wouldn't make a compelling MMO. I actually titled the topic MMO and not MMORPG. Not that I agree you need verticle progression to make an RPG but because the primary focus of this argument was about the need for "MMOs with little to no leveling/twinking." Call them an MMORPG, an MMO, or a ham sandwich. I simply want a massively multiplayer experience without massive power gaps.
I trust you aren't ignorant enough to believe that massively multiplayer and little to no power gap are mutually exclusive terms so I suppose the big question that then begs to me is why even attack it on the grounds that it can't be an RPG without verticle progression? Even if you are right (Which you aren't) how does the kind of game I'm describing not fitting your short-sighted definition of an RPG negate the need for it or make it less fun?
Comments
Define horizontal progression or what game qualifies as horizontal progression that has power gains that aren't debatable as vertical.
Define what an RPG is Mr. logical.
to which many of us attached some desired features such as no vertical progression..something that imho is quite autodefining: anything that gives an advantage ingame or gives access to desired and much "profitable" content.
The design traits of an RPG are story, progression, and stats-driven combat. If you remove progression, a game won't share all of the core traits of an RPG.
That said, I'm not actually calling it impossible. My actual stance is closer to my earlier post which simply challenges the lack of evidence: "Name an RPG that has zero vertical progression." If you have evidence of a game widely considered an RPG which completely lacks vertical progression, by all means post it. Don't just theorize about it, post an actual game actually considered an RPG by the masses. Because I'm pretty sure your WOW example would be given a name like "adventure game" or something, but I'm also pretty sure nobody would make a game that just chopped off one of the core pillars of RPG design, without creating something distinct to fill that void.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The agnosticism is absolutely true (without evidence, his claim is baseless).
The atheism just feels extremely likely to be true (making completely baseless claims very frequently turns out to be wrong).
Will fix the old post.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Calling leveling "wrong" is pure subjective nonsense because leveling is a popular and functional game mechanic. Additionally "wrong" is off-topic because we're not discussing whether the design is right or wrong, simply pointing out that games aren't called RPGs without vertical progression.
But yes, as an aside your interest in RPGs makes absolutely zero sense if realism is your paramount concern. It's more than a little silly that you'd even bother with a forum for a genre (MMORPGs, which are RPGs) which apparently conflicts with your tastes.
You could be making far better decisions than you are.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
It also does an adequate job of distinguishing non-RPGs, since CoD's combat isn't stats-driven, it's predominantly driven by twitch skill. With games that blur the line somewhat like Mass Effect, the strong emphasis on story (which a typical shooter lacks) and the clear progression elements which drive combat help the game to clearly fit RPG more than FPS.
Instead of fixating on horizontal progression, maybe you should start by naming one game considered an RPG which doesn't have vertical progression (meaning just the non-horizontal forms of vertical progression).
Because if you can't name one game, then the point you're trying to make by repeatedly bringing up horizontal progression will be meaningless.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Dynasty Warriors, NBA 2K16, Darksiders, GTA San Andreas, and many many other games have story, progression and stat driven combat.
As I said before Horizontal Progression is philosophy of limited vertical progression and power gaps.
In EQ2 for example you could mentor a characther, what it did was a highleveled characther basically deleveled to an appropriate level of your friend to enyoy the content together.
As I said horizontal progression is a concept of minimal vertical progression and power gains.
If anything is meaningless, it's what you just tried to pull right here.
As venge already stated, in the post you already responded to no less, the notion that something can't be done because there isn't significant evidence of it existing in the past is an entirely irrational stance. If we were to agree with your opinion, then we would have to then agree that all progress is somehow wrong, and that is a wholly irrational position to take.
Not to mention if anyone actually clicks and peruses the linked wiki page of RPG games we can see that there actually is a good amount of games utilizing progression beyond just vertical.
Point being though, even if we took the rest of the claim to be held true then your core argument is still false.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
NBA most heavily characterized by being the sport of basketball, which makes it a sport game.
GTA is an action-adventure game, since it's far more characterized by its action gameplay than its progression and stats-driven combat elements.
Is the reason that you're bringing up horizontal progression (which has little to do with the discussion) that you agree with me that there isn't any evidence of RPGs without vertical progression? You seem bizarrely fixated on horizontal progression, which seems to have zero context t what you're replying to.
I mean you admit that almost no games completely lack vertical progression, so maybe that indicates you do agree with me that his statement was baseless?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Games like Shadowbane and Crowfall are games that show how well you play and know your characters, in games like that there tends to be little to no cookie cutting going on. More games like these would solve the issues of having to do 20 laps in Ironforge out of boredom.
However I would again site the Original Guild Wars as proof that an RPG does not need progression. After your very quick progression to level 20 and max grade armor the game continues to allow you to work to customize your character but the vertical progression is completely over.
Suppose for a moment they started you at level 20 with max grade gear and all you're doing is hunting skills, doing quests, and building up cooler looking armor. You are still role-playing. There is still customization. Much deeper customization than offered in 90% of modern MMORPGs.
Describe to me how that game would NOT be an RPG?
Games like Shadowbane, Crowfall and Darkfall should absolutely be about how well you play and know your character. Crowfall uses EVE style progression that creates stat gaps between players without providing content.
Ultimately that's going to distract from how well you play and know your character and give needless advantages to players that have simply been playing longer.
As someone who already owns his account this advantage should work in my favor as I will have at least one character that will have the maximum XP it's possible to have in that game.
I would give that up in a heartbeat to see stat progression removed altogether and see Crowfall TRUELY be a game about player skill.
It's the reason why I asked you how do you define vertical or horizontal progression which you haven't.
And no those game outside of NBA2K which is sports driven are defined by the stats. Even GTA in that game was very stat driven as your driving, shooting, strengths, stamina, flying skills were gained through usage ot working out. It fits the point that even defining an RPG is hard. If it was fantasy it would be similar to Morrowind in progression.
http://harbingerhideout.enjin.com/forum/viewforum/7479163/m/39251331
Seriously, are you even responding to the discussion at hand?
Horizontal progression is off-topic. It's not relevant.
Someone wrongly said "You can still be an RPG without vertical progression."
I corrected them, pointing out that there isn't actually evidence of RPGs without vertical progression. Either you agree with that (which is basically the entirety of what I'm saying in this part of the thread) or you don't. It's that simple.
Horizontal progression doesn't even enter into it. The trivial amount of vertical progression that horizontal progression provides (via flexibility, which is a form of power) is irrelevant. We're ignoring it, because unless you can show me an RPG that lacks vertical progression then it's irrelevant to make the distinction!
Games are defined by their primary characteristics. In GTA stat-based things aren't driving combat, the action elements are. So no, defining RPGs isn't hard: the primary characteristics of a game will best fit one genre over all others, and that is the game's genre.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
My point was simple and straightforward; it should have been such an obvious little detail that nobody bothered disputing it or responding to it. At most we should've seen what we did see: a non-RPG being mistakenly called an RPG, revealing the root of that other person's misunderstanding of the truth.
Apart from that, it's such a small detail that no further discussion should've been warranted (barring the presentation of evidence, but as we continue this discussion and still have zero evidence of an RPG without vertical progression that prospect grows dimmer by the post).
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The spiritual sequel to Freelancer is Star Citizen, which shares a vision and lead developer with Freelancer. So far it looks like there will be no leveling or character stats as a part of Star Citizen and that equipment won't be gated to it "You need to be level 50 to fly this ship." However there will be powerful ships with lifetime insurance policies suggesting that ships and equipment will create a certain amount of vertical progression even though there will be some loss of value upon their destruction.
One thing I am particularly excited about is the concept of multi-man ships which at least addresses my PvE complaints. For instance my main ship that I pre-purchased was a 5 man exploration vessel. Therefore I can go enjoy content with up to four of my friends and the fact that my ship will most likely be a vastly superior exploration ship to what they are usually flying won't matter because the 5 of us will all be crewing my vessel together.
However Star Citizen will be a long time coming. I don't expect to see a playable MMO for about two more years and I'm guessing that the first year or two of it will be bogged down with bugs. Definately a title to keep your eyes on if you have the patience to deal with the long development time and inevitably buggy release though.
You opinion of not liking something does not factor into that logic, and your vehemence that anything that does not reflect 100% your personal image of what something should be, is utterly meaningless to everything.
Besides which, we can repeat the point made that if you browse the wikipedia link you gave of all those RPGs listed, there's a lot of titles over time that have had minimal if any vertical progression. To quote the point on that;
"Put simply, if you actually crawl through that list of RPG titles, you would find early titles utilized minimal vertical progression if any and instead favored swaps. It was a very adventure driven RPG system back then as opposed to a power driven system.
This becomes more emphasized in the early sci-fi RPG titles that are listed because they focused more on the basis of the plot and the exploration for progression.
If your goal was to say that as computer RPGs continued to be produced they got more narrow in their creative scope and means of delivering content then you might have a point, but the idea that horizontal progression does not have a place or couldn't support an RPG as the primary mode of progression is simply false."
Glad you at least admit at the end there though that the argument you started was such a finite thing to even nitpick that it wasn't actually worth talking about. Almost as if it was pointless to say in the first place.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"Well, take a look at the original Guild Wars. A few days of hard play and you have your character at max level with max gear effectiveness. But there is so much game left after that point. You go around collecting new skills which are not inherently more powerful than the old ones, and cooler looking gear. Players still were motivated to go out and play past max level, and GW ended up being a wildly popular game despite the complete lack of an open world, any sandbox features whatsoever, or crafting. Features that could have made it even more compelling as a long term title."
Neither the words vertical nor horizontal progression were used in the original post because those are terms that Vermillion introduced me to through his useage of them in this topic. However the quote above is a direct reference to horizontal progression in a game in which I made it clear I had no issue with it.
The quote you made and attributed to me is also purely falsified. The original post was all about what would or wouldn't make a compelling MMO. I actually titled the topic MMO and not MMORPG. Not that I agree you need verticle progression to make an RPG but because the primary focus of this argument was about the need for "MMOs with little to no leveling/twinking." Call them an MMORPG, an MMO, or a ham sandwich. I simply want a massively multiplayer experience without massive power gaps.
I trust you aren't ignorant enough to believe that massively multiplayer and little to no power gap are mutually exclusive terms so I suppose the big question that then begs to me is why even attack it on the grounds that it can't be an RPG without verticle progression? Even if you are right (Which you aren't) how does the kind of game I'm describing not fitting your short-sighted definition of an RPG negate the need for it or make it less fun?