IMHO, no power progression at all would be the true revolution.
explore a open persistent world, massively online, no increase in skills, stats, gear...a freshly started char has no handicap if playing with/ vs veterans, except for player skill both in pve and pvp.
why login and play if no growth? unlock more skills to fulfill new roles. new skins. titles. weapons. areas. gold to customize your home or guild or anything else. just not make a char increase power by ×10 ×100
You want a game other than a RPG. Go find it.
a mmo would still be okay...not a mmorpg. but still a mmo. and nope. rpg doesn t mean level or power..but just roleplay.
IMHO, no power progression at all would be the true revolution.
explore a open persistent world, massively online, no increase in skills, stats, gear...a freshly started char has no handicap if playing with/ vs veterans, except for player skill both in pve and pvp.
why login and play if no growth? unlock more skills to fulfill new roles. new skins. titles. weapons. areas. gold to customize your home or guild or anything else. just not make a char increase power by ×10 ×100
You want a game other than a RPG. Go find it.
In no way does an RPG require power progression. An RPG (Role Playing Game) is "A game in which you play a role", not necessarily "A game in which you have power progression". It only requires a game world, a role to play and arguably a story, or the framework to create a story, to play that role in.
I've seen your comments before. Why do you insist on being so dismissive to ideas that don't fit into (from the looks of it) your own apparent mold of what an MMO, RPG or MMORPG has to be?
Back on topic: @Kevan_f, what you describe sounds like an awesome game and I'd play it in a heartbeat. I'd even argue it has a greater potential for story driven gameplay because of it's unrestrictive nature, letting players find their own preferred path in a more organic fashion, compared to the typically railroaded feeling of a themepark MMO.
IMHO, no power progression at all would be the true revolution.
explore a open persistent world, massively online, no increase in skills, stats, gear...a freshly started char has no handicap if playing with/ vs veterans, except for player skill both in pve and pvp.
why login and play if no growth? unlock more skills to fulfill new roles. new skins. titles. weapons. areas. gold to customize your home or guild or anything else. just not make a char increase power by ×10 ×100
Welcome to EVE Online
Aside from that whole training months or even years to be able to fly ships outfitted with the equipment you want.
IMHO, no power progression at all would be the true revolution.
explore a open persistent world, massively online, no increase in skills, stats, gear...a freshly started char has no handicap if playing with/ vs veterans, except for player skill both in pve and pvp.
why login and play if no growth? unlock more skills to fulfill new roles. new skins. titles. weapons. areas. gold to customize your home or guild or anything else. just not make a char increase power by ×10 ×100
You want a game other than a RPG. Go find it.
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
Sure, vertical progression is very common in RPGs, but its not the defining feature - defining and playing a role in a game is. As long as you allow players to unlock new skills / traits / bonuses / whatever that allow them to change (and thus define) their role, then its an RPG. Just make sure that the new stuff you unlock isn't automatically better than what you already have.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
Sure, vertical progression is very common in RPGs, but its not the defining feature - defining and playing a role in a game is. As long as you allow players to unlock new skills / traits / bonuses / whatever that allow them to change (and thus define) their role, then its an RPG. Just make sure that the new stuff you unlock isn't automatically better than what you already have.
Name an RPG that has zero vertical progression.
RPGs have never been games where you simply play a role. If that was the definition, almost every game ever made would be an RPG. The definition instead revolves around story, progression, and stats-driven combat.
While I think maybe you'll be able to make this case, I can't currently think of a single game that had zero vertical progression which was considered an RPG. Which leads back to waynjr2's comment to find non-RPGs if you're not interested in vertical progression -- plenty of those games exist and it's literally stupid for someone to seek out a non-vertical game in a genre which is universally categorized by vertical progression.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
Sure, vertical progression is very common in RPGs, but its not the defining feature - defining and playing a role in a game is. As long as you allow players to unlock new skills / traits / bonuses / whatever that allow them to change (and thus define) their role, then its an RPG. Just make sure that the new stuff you unlock isn't automatically better than what you already have.
Name an RPG that has zero vertical progression.
RPGs have never been games where you simply play a role. If that was the definition, almost every game ever made would be an RPG. The definition instead revolves around story, progression, and stats-driven combat.
While I think maybe you'll be able to make this case, I can't currently think of a single game that had zero vertical progression which was considered an RPG. Which leads back to waynjr2's comment to find non-RPGs if you're not interested in vertical progression -- plenty of those games exist and it's literally stupid for someone to seek out a non-vertical game in a genre which is universally categorized by vertical progression.
First one that springs to mind is Ocarina of Time.
I'm sure there are others but like I've said before, it is very uncommon. Most of the games I've encountered that have horizontal progression tend to only have it for parts of the game. So, vanilla lotro was vertical progression for leveling but horizontal progression at cap. They then went vertical for a few expansions but it killed off the endgame community, so they reverted back to horizontal again.
SWG (pre-cu) and other class-less games also tend to offer a mix of horizontal and vertical progression. Its vertical within a specific skill / profession but horizontal in terms of combinations of skills, new templates etc.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
First one that springs to mind is Ocarina of Time.
I'm sure there are others but like I've said before, it is very uncommon. Most of the games I've encountered that have horizontal progression tend to only have it for parts of the game. So, vanilla lotro was vertical progression for leveling but horizontal progression at cap. They then went vertical for a few expansions but it killed off the endgame community, so they reverted back to horizontal again.
SWG (pre-cu) and other class-less games also tend to offer a mix of horizontal and vertical progression. Its vertical within a specific skill / profession but horizontal in terms of combinations of skills, new templates etc.
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
Sure, vertical progression is very common in RPGs, but its not the defining feature - defining and playing a role in a game is. As long as you allow players to unlock new skills / traits / bonuses / whatever that allow them to change (and thus define) their role, then its an RPG. Just make sure that the new stuff you unlock isn't automatically better than what you already have.
Name an RPG that has zero vertical progression.
Wow that's a whole lot of correlation = causation fallacy you're throwing about there. Take a step back to think a moment.
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.
"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
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
Sure, vertical progression is very common in RPGs, but its not the defining feature - defining and playing a role in a game is. As long as you allow players to unlock new skills / traits / bonuses / whatever that allow them to change (and thus define) their role, then its an RPG. Just make sure that the new stuff you unlock isn't automatically better than what you already have.
Name an RPG that has zero vertical progression.
Wow that's a whole lot of correlation = causation fallacy you're throwing about there. Take a step back to think a moment.
The fact that at the moment there isn't one, doesn't mean it that it won't exist in the future. however...label it rpg or not, some people like me are clearly looking for a game with the features listed above. little to no vertical power progression. no gap in char effectiveness. no grind for BiS gear/exp/top tier skills. open persistent world. massive multiplayer (or at least a good mp with a large number of players in the same place)
call it rpg or not, there is still plenty room for roleplay, char development, story telling, socializing and to me it s enough
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
Sure, vertical progression is very common in RPGs, but its not the defining feature - defining and playing a role in a game is. As long as you allow players to unlock new skills / traits / bonuses / whatever that allow them to change (and thus define) their role, then its an RPG. Just make sure that the new stuff you unlock isn't automatically better than what you already have.
Name an RPG that has zero vertical progression.
Wow that's a whole lot of correlation = causation fallacy you're throwing about there. Take a step back to think a moment.
The fact that at the moment there isn't one, doesn't mean it that it won't exist in the future. however...label it rpg or not, some people like me are clearly looking for a game with the features listed above. little to no vertical power progression. no gap in char effectiveness. no grind for BiS gear/exp/top tier skills. open persistent world. massive multiplayer (or at least a good mp with a large number of players in the same place)
call it rpg or not, there is still plenty room for roleplay, char development, story telling, socializing and to me it s enough
That is rather the point that horizontal progression enables a lot of change and growth in a game without it relating specifically to any major growth in overall power or resulting in the kind of power creep and imbalances seen throughout vertical progression.
"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
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
Sure, vertical progression is very common in RPGs, but its not the defining feature - defining and playing a role in a game is. As long as you allow players to unlock new skills / traits / bonuses / whatever that allow them to change (and thus define) their role, then its an RPG. Just make sure that the new stuff you unlock isn't automatically better than what you already have.
Name an RPG that has zero vertical progression.
RPGs have never been games where you simply play a role. If that was the definition, almost every game ever made would be an RPG. The definition instead revolves around story, progression, and stats-driven combat.
While I think maybe you'll be able to make this case, I can't currently think of a single game that had zero vertical progression which was considered an RPG. Which leads back to waynjr2's comment to find non-RPGs if you're not interested in vertical progression -- plenty of those games exist and it's literally stupid for someone to seek out a non-vertical game in a genre which is universally categorized by vertical progression.
First one that springs to mind is Ocarina of Time.
I'm sure there are others but like I've said before, it is very uncommon. Most of the games I've encountered that have horizontal progression tend to only have it for parts of the game. So, vanilla lotro was vertical progression for leveling but horizontal progression at cap. They then went vertical for a few expansions but it killed off the endgame community, so they reverted back to horizontal again.
SWG (pre-cu) and other class-less games also tend to offer a mix of horizontal and vertical progression. Its vertical within a specific skill / profession but horizontal in terms of combinations of skills, new templates etc.
If we are defining vertical progression as obvious power upgrades and horizontal progression as greater choice in character customization / upgrades that do not give a major increase in raw power then I would disagree with the usage of Ocarina of Time as an example because of a few things like how you get more hearts as you go along.
However in all Zelda games there are some items that don't really make you noticeably more powerful. They are instead a gate to certain content. For instance the red and blue tunics really do absolutely nothing for you other than allow you access to certain areas that the green tunic does not, and give you a bit more choice in appearance customization.
If you were to remove health/magic upgrades and make it so that all the items that give you useful abilities in combat have downsides roughly equal their upsides would Zelda still be an RPG? I would say yes.
You can still be an RPG without vertical progression.
Sure, vertical progression is very common in RPGs, but its not the defining feature - defining and playing a role in a game is. As long as you allow players to unlock new skills / traits / bonuses / whatever that allow them to change (and thus define) their role, then its an RPG. Just make sure that the new stuff you unlock isn't automatically better than what you already have.
Name an RPG that has zero vertical progression.
RPGs have never been games where you simply play a role. If that was the definition, almost every game ever made would be an RPG. The definition instead revolves around story, progression, and stats-driven combat.
While I think maybe you'll be able to make this case, I can't currently think of a single game that had zero vertical progression which was considered an RPG. Which leads back to waynjr2's comment to find non-RPGs if you're not interested in vertical progression -- plenty of those games exist and it's literally stupid for someone to seek out a non-vertical game in a genre which is universally categorized by vertical progression.
You're arguing literalism. The concept of horizontal progression is that the characters lack the power gap and are fleshed out by obtaining powers in a very shallow vertical progression.
You're arguing literalism. The concept of horizontal progression is that the characters lack the power gap and are fleshed out by obtaining powers in a very shallow vertical progression.
There is exactly zero ambiguity to the claim, "You can still be an RPG without vertical progression."
It was a standalone sentence.
We continue to have exactly zero evidence of any RPG without vertical progression.
Feel free to uselessly fling terms like 'literalism' against what I've said. It doesn't change the fact that what I've said is right.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you were to remove health/magic upgrades and make it so that all the items that give you useful abilities in combat have downsides roughly equal their upsides would Zelda still be an RPG? I would say yes.
Zelda isn't an RPG in the first place, so this is wrong.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We already corrected that claim of yours axe, not even the wiki link to RPGs produced supports your claim since people can actively browse the pages and see what is and isn't using vertical progression heavily or at all.
You proved yourself wrong for us. Could at least read your own links before sharing them.
"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
You're arguing literalism. The concept of horizontal progression is that the characters lack the power gap and are fleshed out by obtaining powers in a very shallow vertical progression.
There is exactly zero ambiguity to the claim, "You can still be an RPG without vertical progression."
It was a standalone sentence.
We continue to have exactly zero evidence of any RPG without vertical progression.
Feel free to uselessly fling terms like 'literalism' against what I've said. It doesn't change the fact that what I've said is right.
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 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: there isn't any evidence of a game being called an RPG which has no 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.
Post edited by Axehilt on
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
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.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
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?
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.
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.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
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.
Axe, you are using logic to fight someone who is using emotion. It doesn't work with wives and girlfriends so don't expect it to work here either.
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.
If you looked at the wiki page he linked of RPGs you'd see plenty of titles that are non-vertical. He's not using logic, he's just trying to argue his opinion in opposition of another opinion.
Also since he likes to use Wikipedia and argue about game classifications. I'm just gonna go ahead and point out that Deus Ex is in fact considered an RPG.
"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
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.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
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.
And again I asked you what do you consider Horizontal progression. If you can't define what Horizontal progression is than its no point in debating.
Can to you even define an RPG or at least list what qualifies as one to you?
Is Call of Duty now a roleplaying game because it has levels? NBA2K16 mycareer mode has vast vertical progression and a story so it means that it is an RPG but Legend of Zelda games aren't? And I am sure you get far in academia sourcing Wikipedia.
Comments
and nope. rpg doesn t mean level or power..but just roleplay.
I've seen your comments before. Why do you insist on being so dismissive to ideas that don't fit into (from the looks of it) your own apparent mold of what an MMO, RPG or MMORPG has to be?
Back on topic:
@Kevan_f, what you describe sounds like an awesome game and I'd play it in a heartbeat. I'd even argue it has a greater potential for story driven gameplay because of it's unrestrictive nature, letting players find their own preferred path in a more organic fashion, compared to the typically railroaded feeling of a themepark MMO.
Luckily you don't have to grind. Just wait.
Sure, vertical progression is very common in RPGs, but its not the defining feature - defining and playing a role in a game is. As long as you allow players to unlock new skills / traits / bonuses / whatever that allow them to change (and thus define) their role, then its an RPG. Just make sure that the new stuff you unlock isn't automatically better than what you already have.
RPGs have never been games where you simply play a role. If that was the definition, almost every game ever made would be an RPG. The definition instead revolves around story, progression, and stats-driven combat.
While I think maybe you'll be able to make this case, I can't currently think of a single game that had zero vertical progression which was considered an RPG. Which leads back to waynjr2's comment to find non-RPGs if you're not interested in vertical progression -- plenty of those games exist and it's literally stupid for someone to seek out a non-vertical game in a genre which is universally categorized by vertical progression.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm sure there are others but like I've said before, it is very uncommon. Most of the games I've encountered that have horizontal progression tend to only have it for parts of the game. So, vanilla lotro was vertical progression for leveling but horizontal progression at cap. They then went vertical for a few expansions but it killed off the endgame community, so they reverted back to horizontal again.
SWG (pre-cu) and other class-less games also tend to offer a mix of horizontal and vertical progression. Its vertical within a specific skill / profession but horizontal in terms of combinations of skills, new templates etc.
Your other examples had vertical progression and were RPGs.
So maybe you can't do an RPG without vertical progression?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Take a step back to think a moment.
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.
"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
however...label it rpg or not, some people like me are clearly looking for a game with the features listed above.
little to no vertical power progression. no gap in char effectiveness. no grind for BiS gear/exp/top tier skills. open persistent world. massive multiplayer (or at least a good mp with a large number of players in the same place)
call it rpg or not, there is still plenty room for roleplay, char development, story telling, socializing
and to me it s enough
"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
However in all Zelda games there are some items that don't really make you noticeably more powerful. They are instead a gate to certain content. For instance the red and blue tunics really do absolutely nothing for you other than allow you access to certain areas that the green tunic does not, and give you a bit more choice in appearance customization.
If you were to remove health/magic upgrades and make it so that all the items that give you useful abilities in combat have downsides roughly equal their upsides would Zelda still be an RPG? I would say yes.
It was a standalone sentence.
We continue to have exactly zero evidence of any RPG without vertical progression.
Feel free to uselessly fling terms like 'literalism' against what I've said. It doesn't change the fact that what I've said is right.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You proved yourself wrong for us. Could at least read your own links before sharing them.
"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
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.
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: there isn't any evidence of a game being called an RPG which has no 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.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
[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.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
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?
"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.
Also since he likes to use Wikipedia and argue about game classifications. I'm just gonna go ahead and point out that Deus Ex is in fact considered an RPG.
"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
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.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Can to you even define an RPG or at least list what qualifies as one to you?
Is Call of Duty now a roleplaying game because it has levels? NBA2K16 mycareer mode has vast vertical progression and a story so it means that it is an RPG but Legend of Zelda games aren't? And I am sure you get far in academia sourcing Wikipedia.