The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You may all be hooked-to the latest Notable Election right now, but i'm sure there are still some of you out there who wouldn't mind taking 2 or 3 minutes to read what I have to say now would you? :)
Role Playing Games (RPG's for short) have fast become one of the most-loved gaming genres, right up there with First Person Shooters of the likes of GoldenEye, Half-Life and Halo.
Success of the long-running individual series' like Nintendo's 'The Legend of Zelda' and Square's 'Final Fantasy' (to name as only 2) have played a huge part in helping to turn this genre into the success it is today. Of course, there are, have been, and always will be many more equally great Role Playing Games to make this the case on a long-term basis, but these 2 stand-out from the rest as undoubtabely the most-succesfull of the lot.
What makes RPG's so great??
No-one can easily pin-point what makes them so much greater than all those Sport Sims, Real Time Strategies and Platforming greats, but whatever it is in that 'winning formula', it has worked out like a real treat.
But if you think you can pin-point all the plus points about the RPG Genre then by all means, go ahead and try it! I will wait all year if I have to....! :D
There are some elements of games that are required in order to make RPG's the success' they always seem to turn-out to be. Without these, an RPG just wouldn't be! So, with that in mind, how do you correctly define what an RPG is all about, with what is required to create a new 'Chart Topper'??
'Magic' seems to be something that crops up in just about every single RPG. Zelda has it, so does Final Fantasy, even LBA and the newly released Lost Kingdom.
But what about Shenmue?? Where's the magic in that?
From what I can see there is no 'obvious' magic like spells and the like, but there is the magic within that helps to bring this story-adventure to life.
So maybe magic spells and potions aren't all that neccesary despite what we may have at first expected.
'Items' are neccesity's to every hero in RPG's alone. But just because a game like Super Mario Bros. 3 envolves Item Collecting, does it really make that an RPG now?? No. Of course not. But without items, the heros would fail in numorous attempts to overcome their obstacles and venge-off the main bad guy to save the Princess.
Could Link have saved Hyrule without the Master Sword?? And what about Twinsen with his Magic Ball?? These are definitley required in order to make an RPG great, without a doubt. But they can also pop-up in other genres too.
'Interactivity' in my view, has to be one of the key factors in making these games so great. Shenmue is a great example, and the interactivity in this game not only vastly increased it's size, but made the game a lot 'closer to real-life' with the buying and working elements included.
Without being able to talk to the locals of Hyrule, Link may have never been able to find all that he was looking for. The friendly advice from others can prove vital in the biggest and most complex of Adventure games.
A BIG 'must include' sticker goes here. *SPLAT*
The 'Enviroments' themselves play a big part in the Adventure. If they are too small and have very little complexity and interactivity in them then the game will soon become short-lived and boring. Even the little things like being able to slash through the bushes in Zelda helps to add to the greatness of these games.
Heros need spaces to explore - and we're not just talking Car Parks here!
With bigger lands and lots to see and do, the game just seems to grow and grow.
A decent 'Storyline' is always required in-order to make any game succesfull. Even if it's the same old 'Save the Princess' thing all-over-again, as long as it's got plenty of action and adventure in it, it'll be a success.
Storylines in Zelda are always the same, and look where that series is today!
But if several adventures follow straight on from one-to-the-other then it's highly-possible that the series will start to die of dullness.
Shenmue is still only 2 games long - with a 3rd on the way. It seems that these games will follow-on from the last, and in order to keep the series great, I believe that we will be lucky to see more than 5 Shenmue games ever created.
These a few key points that must be taken into strong-consideration by the developers if they wish to keep an RPG series growing healthily and strong. I'm also pretty sure that there are one or two other points to, but these come ontop of the list as 'top priorities'. Without these key factors, you could not possibly have in your hands a 'True RPG', like Zelda, just like Final Fantasy.
These are the points that I feel best 'define' what RPG's are all about.
If you have anything else to add then by all means please do so.
Surely I can't have got them all....??
Role Playing Games (RPG's for short) have fast become one of the most-loved gaming genres, right up there with First Person Shooters of the likes of GoldenEye, Half-Life and Halo.
Success of the long-running individual series' like Nintendo's 'The Legend of Zelda' and Square's 'Final Fantasy' (to name as only 2) have played a huge part in helping to turn this genre into the success it is today. Of course, there are, have been, and always will be many more equally great Role Playing Games to make this the case on a long-term basis, but these 2 stand-out from the rest as undoubtabely the most-succesfull of the lot.
What makes RPG's so great??
No-one can easily pin-point what makes them so much greater than all those Sport Sims, Real Time Strategies and Platforming greats, but whatever it is in that 'winning formula', it has worked out like a real treat.
But if you think you can pin-point all the plus points about the RPG Genre then by all means, go ahead and try it! I will wait all year if I have to....! :D
There are some elements of games that are required in order to make RPG's the success' they always seem to turn-out to be. Without these, an RPG just wouldn't be! So, with that in mind, how do you correctly define what an RPG is all about, with what is required to create a new 'Chart Topper'??
'Magic' seems to be something that crops up in just about every single RPG. Zelda has it, so does Final Fantasy, even LBA and the newly released Lost Kingdom.
But what about Shenmue?? Where's the magic in that?
From what I can see there is no 'obvious' magic like spells and the like, but there is the magic within that helps to bring this story-adventure to life.
So maybe magic spells and potions aren't all that neccesary despite what we may have at first expected.
'Items' are neccesity's to every hero in RPG's alone. But just because a game like Super Mario Bros. 3 envolves Item Collecting, does it really make that an RPG now?? No. Of course not. But without items, the heros would fail in numorous attempts to overcome their obstacles and venge-off the main bad guy to save the Princess.
Could Link have saved Hyrule without the Master Sword?? And what about Twinsen with his Magic Ball?? These are definitley required in order to make an RPG great, without a doubt. But they can also pop-up in other genres too.
'Interactivity' in my view, has to be one of the key factors in making these games so great. Shenmue is a great example, and the interactivity in this game not only vastly increased it's size, but made the game a lot 'closer to real-life' with the buying and working elements included.
Without being able to talk to the locals of Hyrule, Link may have never been able to find all that he was looking for. The friendly advice from others can prove vital in the biggest and most complex of Adventure games.
A BIG 'must include' sticker goes here. *SPLAT*
The 'Enviroments' themselves play a big part in the Adventure. If they are too small and have very little complexity and interactivity in them then the game will soon become short-lived and boring. Even the little things like being able to slash through the bushes in Zelda helps to add to the greatness of these games.
Heros need spaces to explore - and we're not just talking Car Parks here!
With bigger lands and lots to see and do, the game just seems to grow and grow.
A decent 'Storyline' is always required in-order to make any game succesfull. Even if it's the same old 'Save the Princess' thing all-over-again, as long as it's got plenty of action and adventure in it, it'll be a success.
Storylines in Zelda are always the same, and look where that series is today!
But if several adventures follow straight on from one-to-the-other then it's highly-possible that the series will start to die of dullness.
Shenmue is still only 2 games long - with a 3rd on the way. It seems that these games will follow-on from the last, and in order to keep the series great, I believe that we will be lucky to see more than 5 Shenmue games ever created.
These a few key points that must be taken into strong-consideration by the developers if they wish to keep an RPG series growing healthily and strong. I'm also pretty sure that there are one or two other points to, but these come ontop of the list as 'top priorities'. Without these key factors, you could not possibly have in your hands a 'True RPG', like Zelda, just like Final Fantasy.
These are the points that I feel best 'define' what RPG's are all about.
If you have anything else to add then by all means please do so.
Surely I can't have got them all....??
Page:
Zelda and Final Fantasy both rock. Zelda has got great graphics and is an action RPG, whereas Final Fantasy has also got great graphics but is a traditional turn based RPG. FF has got a much deeper level of combat and has much greater strategical gameplay than Zelda. Zelda is just as linear as Final Fantasy because, just like FF, you have to do things in order. Zelda doesn't give you the game world and you do what you want - you go to the Deku tree, you go to Hyrule Castle, you go the other temples. In that order (I think). Sure, there are tiny sub quests you can do, but in that region FF trumps Zelda. I could complete Zelda in a day. I couldn't complete any Final Fantasy game in a day. FF games are longer, more story driven but not necessarily any more linear. Anyway, one is an action RPG, the other turn based. You shouldn't compare them, because neither is better, and they're both great games anyway.
SmokedKipper wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Have you actually played a Final Fantasy game? They are some of the
> most linear games I have ever come across. At least in Zelda you can
> choose the order in which you do a lot of things but in FF unless you
> go from one correct place to the next correct place you simply can't
> advance in the game.
The bits when you get airships/boats are very, very free-roaming, and you can advance the game by exploring. Take FF8. If you explore you come across a secret village, and a new task. Complete the task, and you get a secret summon. You also get secret Aeons in FF10 from exploring and in all FF gams there are secrets which come from going off on your own.
>
> f) FF has more cut-scenes, lending them a more movie-like feel.
> Zelda
> is a lot less movie-like.
>
> I disagree. The cut scenes in Zelda (at least the newer ones) use the
> in game graphics rather than pre-rendered tripe. I despise the FF
> approach. It draws a line between the story and the game wheras Zelda
> is one continuous event.
>
Well, I've only played Majora's Mask and Oracle of Ages and both of thsoe have less frequent and shorter cut-scenes.
> g) FF portrays a fantasy setting, yet also tries tom make it look
> real. Zelda doesn't try or want to look real.
>
> Eh?
Cel-shading and cartoon graphics aren't as real as Pre-rendered backgrounds or teh settings of FF.
>I think the random battles ruin FF games.
Yeah, but without them your character would remain crap as he would get very little experience and therefore learn very little. Unless they make it so abilities come mroe often or you get much more exp from bosses.
>
>
>
>
> Have you actually played a Final Fantasy game? They are some of the
> most linear games I have ever come across. At least in Zelda you can
> choose the order in which you do a lot of things but in FF unless you
> go from one correct place to the next correct place you simply can't
> advance in the game.
The bits when you get airships/boats are very, very free-roaming, and you can advance the game by exploring. Take FF8. If you explore you come across a secret village, and a new task. Complete the task, and you get a secret summon. You also get secret Aeons in FF10 from exploring and in all FF gams there are secrets which come from going off on your own.
>
> f) FF has more cut-scenes, lending them a more movie-like feel.
> Zelda
> is a lot less movie-like.
>
> I disagree. The cut scenes in Zelda (at least the newer ones) use the
> in game graphics rather than pre-rendered tripe. I despise the FF
> approach. It draws a line between the story and the game wheras Zelda
> is one continuous event.
>
Well, I've only played Majora's Mask and Oracle of Ages and both of thsoe have less frequent and shorter cut-scenes.
> g) FF portrays a fantasy setting, yet also tries tom make it look
> real. Zelda doesn't try or want to look real.
>
> Eh?
Cel-shading and cartoon graphics aren't as real as Pre-rendered backgrounds or teh settings of FF.
>I think the random battles ruin FF games.
Yeah, but without them your character would remain crap as he would get very little experience and therefore learn very little. Unless they make it so abilities come mroe often or you get much more exp from bosses.
SmokedKipper wrote:
> Asher D wrote:
> c) Zelda is slightly more linear than FF.
>
> Have you actually played a Final Fantasy game? They are some of the
> most linear games I have ever come across. At least in Zelda you can
> choose the order in which you do a lot of things but in FF unless you
> go from one correct place to the next correct place you simply can't
> advance in the game.
I agree that the FF titles are slightly more linear in what you have to do. You generally are told to go there, do that to advance. Although at times you are pretty much free to go off on side quests and look for things (such as new materia in FF7) the main game is very linear. I would also say this is relatively true in Zelda games though, but in a different sort of way. You have to (in the majority of cases) complete dungeons in a certain order. Indeed, having dungeons itself is not exactly linear, but is one of those old RPG cliches. Go to the dungeon, kill the evil being there, advance to the next dungeon. Okay, it's not exactly the same in Zelda games, but the Zelda games are linear in what you have to do within the main game to advance, despite the fact you can generally explore and complete sub quests whenever you wish.
> g) FF portrays a fantasy setting, yet also tries tom make it look
> real. Zelda doesn't try or want to look real.
>
> Eh?
It's true both have 'fantasy' settings as in they're not realistic. I think Asher was mainly speaking of FF7, which had it's kind of techno theme with rich corporation sucking energy out of the planet for electricity. But this was backed up with the fantasy tones of the materia and all the stuff about the ancients. FF7 had both futuristic (realistic-esque) and fantasy undertones. Zelda has no futuristic undertones whatsoever. However, other FF games are different altogether. FF8 had the same kind of technology/fantasy themes as FF7, but from what I've seen of FF9 it is all fantasy style with main characters based on animals and suchlike...
> Well, that's my view. Both are RPG's but follow very different paths
> in the genre.
>
> Regardless of my opinion of turn based combat (even though I loved
> Skies of Arcadia) I think the random battles ruin FF games. Chrono
> Trigger proved that turn based RPGs don't have to randomly throw you
> into battle whether you like it or not to have a successful combat
> system.
Turn based battles are really all down to taste. I don't mind them, but I think random battles are restrictive at times, as the player isn't allowed much freedom. Earthbound (SNES) had a good take on turn based combat with the enemies actually on the normal 'walk about' screen so you could try and get behind them for a suprise attack, but if they got behind you you'd be ambushed and stuff like that. But I think turn based battles are good for some games.
> Asher D wrote:
> c) Zelda is slightly more linear than FF.
>
> Have you actually played a Final Fantasy game? They are some of the
> most linear games I have ever come across. At least in Zelda you can
> choose the order in which you do a lot of things but in FF unless you
> go from one correct place to the next correct place you simply can't
> advance in the game.
I agree that the FF titles are slightly more linear in what you have to do. You generally are told to go there, do that to advance. Although at times you are pretty much free to go off on side quests and look for things (such as new materia in FF7) the main game is very linear. I would also say this is relatively true in Zelda games though, but in a different sort of way. You have to (in the majority of cases) complete dungeons in a certain order. Indeed, having dungeons itself is not exactly linear, but is one of those old RPG cliches. Go to the dungeon, kill the evil being there, advance to the next dungeon. Okay, it's not exactly the same in Zelda games, but the Zelda games are linear in what you have to do within the main game to advance, despite the fact you can generally explore and complete sub quests whenever you wish.
> g) FF portrays a fantasy setting, yet also tries tom make it look
> real. Zelda doesn't try or want to look real.
>
> Eh?
It's true both have 'fantasy' settings as in they're not realistic. I think Asher was mainly speaking of FF7, which had it's kind of techno theme with rich corporation sucking energy out of the planet for electricity. But this was backed up with the fantasy tones of the materia and all the stuff about the ancients. FF7 had both futuristic (realistic-esque) and fantasy undertones. Zelda has no futuristic undertones whatsoever. However, other FF games are different altogether. FF8 had the same kind of technology/fantasy themes as FF7, but from what I've seen of FF9 it is all fantasy style with main characters based on animals and suchlike...
> Well, that's my view. Both are RPG's but follow very different paths
> in the genre.
>
> Regardless of my opinion of turn based combat (even though I loved
> Skies of Arcadia) I think the random battles ruin FF games. Chrono
> Trigger proved that turn based RPGs don't have to randomly throw you
> into battle whether you like it or not to have a successful combat
> system.
Turn based battles are really all down to taste. I don't mind them, but I think random battles are restrictive at times, as the player isn't allowed much freedom. Earthbound (SNES) had a good take on turn based combat with the enemies actually on the normal 'walk about' screen so you could try and get behind them for a suprise attack, but if they got behind you you'd be ambushed and stuff like that. But I think turn based battles are good for some games.
Asher D wrote:
> Bear in mind that Zelda and Final Fantasy are very different games.
>
> a) Zelda uses real time battles, yet FF has more strategical turn
> based ones.
True.
> b) Zelda contains puzzles. FF does not.
FF isn't completely puzzle free, but it doesn't use them to the extent that Zelda does.
> c) Zelda is slightly more linear than FF.
Have you actually played a Final Fantasy game? They are some of the most linear games I have ever come across. At least in Zelda you can choose the order in which you do a lot of things but in FF unless you go from one correct place to the next correct place you simply can't advance in the game.
> d) Zelda can fully explore his surroundings, like jump and climb and
> stuff. Final Fantasy has exploration, but a lot of the time it is more
> iteracting with the scnery.
And walking around on an overworld map rather than an actual place.
> e) FF has stronger storylines than Zelda games. Zelda has more
> fighting and exploring where as every second of FF is revolving around
> the story.
That's a matter of opinion but I'd agree with you there - but is it a good thing? The great stories are spoiled somewhat by having to plough through the endlessly repetitive gameplay to find out what happens next.
> f) FF has more cut-scenes, lending them a more movie-like feel. Zelda
> is a lot less movie-like.
I disagree. The cut scenes in Zelda (at least the newer ones) use the in game graphics rather than pre-rendered tripe. I despise the FF approach. It draws a line between the story and the game wheras Zelda is one continuous event.
> g) FF portrays a fantasy setting, yet also tries tom make it look
> real. Zelda doesn't try or want to look real.
Eh?
> Well, that's my view. Both are RPG's but follow very different paths
> in the genre.
Regardless of my opinion of turn based combat (even though I loved Skies of Arcadia) I think the random battles ruin FF games. Chrono Trigger proved that turn based RPGs don't have to randomly throw you into battle whether you like it or not to have a successful combat system.
> Bear in mind that Zelda and Final Fantasy are very different games.
>
> a) Zelda uses real time battles, yet FF has more strategical turn
> based ones.
True.
> b) Zelda contains puzzles. FF does not.
FF isn't completely puzzle free, but it doesn't use them to the extent that Zelda does.
> c) Zelda is slightly more linear than FF.
Have you actually played a Final Fantasy game? They are some of the most linear games I have ever come across. At least in Zelda you can choose the order in which you do a lot of things but in FF unless you go from one correct place to the next correct place you simply can't advance in the game.
> d) Zelda can fully explore his surroundings, like jump and climb and
> stuff. Final Fantasy has exploration, but a lot of the time it is more
> iteracting with the scnery.
And walking around on an overworld map rather than an actual place.
> e) FF has stronger storylines than Zelda games. Zelda has more
> fighting and exploring where as every second of FF is revolving around
> the story.
That's a matter of opinion but I'd agree with you there - but is it a good thing? The great stories are spoiled somewhat by having to plough through the endlessly repetitive gameplay to find out what happens next.
> f) FF has more cut-scenes, lending them a more movie-like feel. Zelda
> is a lot less movie-like.
I disagree. The cut scenes in Zelda (at least the newer ones) use the in game graphics rather than pre-rendered tripe. I despise the FF approach. It draws a line between the story and the game wheras Zelda is one continuous event.
> g) FF portrays a fantasy setting, yet also tries tom make it look
> real. Zelda doesn't try or want to look real.
Eh?
> Well, that's my view. Both are RPG's but follow very different paths
> in the genre.
Regardless of my opinion of turn based combat (even though I loved Skies of Arcadia) I think the random battles ruin FF games. Chrono Trigger proved that turn based RPGs don't have to randomly throw you into battle whether you like it or not to have a successful combat system.
Bah. Baldurs Gate rules. It has Kobolds in. And Dwarves. Even a dark elf! And plenty of beards too. And of course long swords +2 'Frostbite' which inflicts +1 ice damage on each hit unless the enemy saves vs. spell. I kid you not. It rules most profusely.
Also, Earthbound, Secret of Mana and Zelda on the SNES ruled. As did Soleil, Story of Thor and probably thers I don't remember on the MegaDrive.
RPGs rule. :P
Also, Earthbound, Secret of Mana and Zelda on the SNES ruled. As did Soleil, Story of Thor and probably thers I don't remember on the MegaDrive.
RPGs rule. :P
I have never really been a fan of RPG's myself, I find they over dramatise on the stroy and leave out vital gameplay elements which don't warrant a purchase. I remember playing Final Fantasy 7 for a long time on the PSONE nad I must say the game was superb, but after a while I got very bored and the other Final Fantasys didn't entise me back into the series. I believe that RPG's work best when the are mixed in with other gameplay styles, a good example of that is he award winning Deus Ex on the PC (one of my all time favourite games and definatley the greatest PC game I have ever played, Half Life comes close but not as immersing). The game invloves the perfect pinch of RPG, Action/Adventure and First Person shooting, instead of having the usual 'pick up gun and blast' gameplay it took on an approach which not only worked but also brought the game 36 Game of the Year Awards.
RPG's are usually fantasy games, wizards, magic and worlords have never interested me in the slightest so this is why I have probably never taken to a full on RPG with a positive attitude. Its a shame because I have tried to get into Buldur's Gate on the PC a lot of times but I always end up getting bored quickly and I don't have the patience to walk around for long periods of time without having anything to show for my actions, but isn't this what RPG's are about? When I get enough money together I am going to pick up a copy of the rare Dreamcast game 'Skies of Arcadia'. From what I have read the game nails Final Fantasy is nearly every aspect of the game, the game is fun to play yet great to look at and in the Final Fantasys I never really thought that the games struck a nice balance between both of those aspects.
Maybe if RPG's take on different roles and begin to irradicate the fantasy side of the equation then I will pick myself up a copy of one and see it trough until the end, but until then I won't be going near the genre (unless I get the money for Skies of Arcadia) and that is a shame really as I believe that some have a lot to offer in terms of gameplay and graphical power.
RPG's are usually fantasy games, wizards, magic and worlords have never interested me in the slightest so this is why I have probably never taken to a full on RPG with a positive attitude. Its a shame because I have tried to get into Buldur's Gate on the PC a lot of times but I always end up getting bored quickly and I don't have the patience to walk around for long periods of time without having anything to show for my actions, but isn't this what RPG's are about? When I get enough money together I am going to pick up a copy of the rare Dreamcast game 'Skies of Arcadia'. From what I have read the game nails Final Fantasy is nearly every aspect of the game, the game is fun to play yet great to look at and in the Final Fantasys I never really thought that the games struck a nice balance between both of those aspects.
Maybe if RPG's take on different roles and begin to irradicate the fantasy side of the equation then I will pick myself up a copy of one and see it trough until the end, but until then I won't be going near the genre (unless I get the money for Skies of Arcadia) and that is a shame really as I believe that some have a lot to offer in terms of gameplay and graphical power.
I know, I'm a big 'RPG' fan myself. I thinkthe beauty of them is the storyline, but the best example I've seen of an RPG storyline was not in FF or Zelda but in Capcoms ignored Breath Of Fire 4.
I know what you're saying Asher, and that was sposed to be something I was going to touch-on in the original post about how any game could be classed as an RPG because of the 'Role' you 'Play' in the 'Game' as the main charcater you play as who saves the day.
But there is simply much more to it than that - and that's what I was also trying to say with the enviroments, intercations and items, all things that you're unlikely to find in the average 3rd Person Shooter or Platformer.
But there is simply much more to it than that - and that's what I was also trying to say with the enviroments, intercations and items, all things that you're unlikely to find in the average 3rd Person Shooter or Platformer.
So much so i felt like expressing it twice :-)
RPG means Role Playing Game - where you take up the role of a character. If you look at it from this angle, Max Payne, Metal Gear, Mario, Toca Race Driver and even SSx Tricky where you pick your character and form friendships and rivalries; all of these are 'Role Playing Games'.
Page: