Spike TV 2005 Video Game Awards

[DonTadow]

finished thought

But again, I think thats where marketing has interjected. Diablo is at best an adventure or action adventure as opposed to an RPG... actually its more of a very limited mmorpg. With mmorpg the rpg's are there strictly for flavor for the genre.

Baldur's gate and knights of the republic were both turn based, in that you were timed when your creature does something. This is innovations to the time based system, but its still time based. The new final fantsy uses asimpliar system in which you can move around and attack and stuff but your moves are still time based, meaning you can't attack when the button is pressed, only when your next turn comes up, the same as Knights of the Republic. Jade Empire has a similar technqiue as far as your attacks go. What Bioware has done a good job of is make innovations in the time-based mechanism, but in the end when i hit x my sword don't always swing at that very moment.

There hasn't been one rpg that has come out that hasn't been turn based. From Elders Scroll, to Dungeon Siege to Shin Megasi.

RPGs got real popular after Final Fantasy 7 in America and thus being an RPG became an important marketing tool. Before that RPG used to be niche games.

 

[Dark Jezter]

But again, I think thats where marketing has interjected. Diablo is at best an adventure or action adventure as opposed to an RPG... actually its more of a very limited mmorpg. With mmorpg the rpg's are there strictly for flavor for the genre.

No, Diablo is an RPG. The game developers have stated it, countless reviewers have placed it in the RPG genre, and that's the genre has been defined as by pretty much everybody except PnP adherents who believe that the only games that should be called RPGs are strictly turn-based, attribute-dependent affairs reminiscent of the early Ultima, Wizardry, or AD&D Gold Box games.

Baldur's gate and knights of the republic were both turn based, in that you were timed when your creature does something. This is innovations to the time based system, but its still time based. The new final fantsy uses asimpliar system in which you can move around and attack and stuff but your moves are still time based, meaning you can't attack when the button is pressed, only when your next turn comes up, the same as Knights of the Republic.

You seem to be confusing "turn based combat" with "having your actions on a cooldown timer". BG and KotOR have real-time combat systems. You can inturrupt combat to assign actions, and you can only do a certain amount of actions in a time period, but that does not make it turn-based.

Jade Empire has a similar technqiue as far as your attacks go. What Bioware has done a good job of is make innovations in the time-based mechanism, but in the end when i hit x my sword don't always swing at that very moment.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how you could consider Jade Empire's combat system as turn-based by any stretch of the imagination. It happens in real time, your character performs actions as soon as you hit the button, and you can't inturrupt combat to assign actions to your character. Jade Empire's combat is about as turn-based as the combat in Street Fighter II.

There hasn't been one rpg that has come out that hasn't been turn based. From Elders Scroll, to Dungeon Siege to Shin Megasi.

I suppose that's true, when you make up your own definitions about what constitutes an RPG, as well as what turn-based and real-time combat are.

 

[DonTadow]

Morrowind is NOT turn-based. At all. Not even close.

Morrowind is very much turn based as were all the other elder scrolls. Your weapon speed and ability speed is all based on a number que. game companies have made innovations so that the games are not your turn my turn, but number que games are still turn based. Any game where when i hit the action button everytime something doesnt happen is turn based.

No, Diablo is an RPG. The game developers have stated it, countless reviewers have placed it in the RPG genre, and that's the genre has been defined as by pretty much everybody except PnP adherents who believe that the only games that should be called RPGs are strictly turn-based, attribute-dependent affairs reminiscent of the early Ultima, Wizardry, or AD&D Gold Box games.



You seem to be confusing "turn based combat" with "having your actions on a cooldown timer". BG and KotOR have real-time combat systems. You can inturrupt combat to assign actions, and you can only do a certain amount of actions in a time period, but that does not make it turn-based.



I'm sorry, but I can't see how you could consider Jade Empire's combat system as turn-based by any stretch of the imagination. It happens in real time, your character performs actions as soon as you hit the button, and you can't inturrupt combat to assign actions to your character. Jade Empire's combat is about as turn-based as the combat in Street Fighter II.



I suppose that's true, when you make up your own definitions about what constitutes an RPG, as well as what turn-based and real-time combat are.

I"ve played Diablo, its no where near an rpg. Or at least not a very good one, though its a great multiplayer game. Marketing put that game into the rpg category because when it came out, there wasn't much of an mmorpg category. The game is an mmorpg with an option to play it as an rpg, though, again its not the primary function of the game.

Real-time combat was a buzz word Square invented with their Final Fantasy's that caught on in the industry. In the end though, its all turn based, though not "your turn, my turn" more like you go on initiative 14 and I go on initaitive 20... gee where'd they get that from. However it is still turn based, and earlier articles where square was explaining the concept called it an innovation on turn based systems. Then later on the market moved towards just calling it "real-time combat". Though the only real time combat is when the actions immediately happen when the trigger is pulled.

Sorry I meant to say Never Winters Nights and left out my desciption of Jade Empire. Jade Empire is not an RPG no more than Xman Legends is an RPG. And I like them both. I"m going by the original meaning of what RPGs are, not what a marketing deparment tells me. I've seen articles trying to label Grand theft autos as rpgs. I put it in the same category as Dark Cloud, the second castlevania and river city ransom.

WE gamers are in a world of marketing now. If they put it out there and call it that, that's what we tend to think it is, despite the missing elements.

 

[ThirdWizard]

KOTOR is turn based combat. It just doesn't stop to check if it should keep doing the same thing or change actions every turn. It uses the d20 mechanics, which are definately turn based, but cyclical. Neverwinter Nights is the same way. It hides the timer and makes it look real time, but its actually turn based.

I don't see anyone claiming that Final Fantasy VII wasn't turn based, and its active combat system meant that not only did people's turns happen at different speeds, but if you just stood there, the enemy would beat you down, not waiting for you to pick a move. Cast berserk on yourself and you essentially have the same thing as KOTOR's system. They're both turn based.

 

[WizarDru]

Me. And all three of those blew away most games on the RPG nominee list. (IMO, of course. I know JRPGs aren't particularly popular at ENWorld...)

Well, that's clearly subjective and I wouldn't try to argue otherwise. But from a sales standpoint, none of these games came anywhere close to the ones that were nominated. That's no mark of quality, by a long stretch, but clearly the awards were based on popularity...after all, I can't vote for Atelier Iris as best RPG of the year...because I haven't played it. I'm willing to bet the same applies for everyone who voted for the candidates.

Zelda does change, he gets more and more hearts as he goes up in levels. He also gets better swords and arrows, which play out for a stronger character. These are RPG elements. But the key rpg element to zelda is exploration. However, he fought in real time which is why the game was labeled an adventure. Adventure used to be any game that blended the elements of action and rpg, but the fighting is always in real time. Like Xmen and Resident Evil are adventures, not action rpgs as they don't posess enough of either genre to really earn the name. They are hybrids, and should be labeled adventures. Castlevania was an action game when it first came out but later sequals delved it into more of an adventure exploration type game. It's a marketing thing why the adventure label for games disappeared.

Well, Link does gain more hearts...but again, that's a cosemtic difference. By that token, Metroid Prime 1/2 are RPGs. Link gaining additional hearts is no different than Samus getting an additional energy tank...a distinction made somewhat irrelevant as the enemies begin doing incrementally more damage through the course of the game. If you have twelve hearts when you face Gannondorf, but Gannondorf inflicts three hearts of damage when he hits...it's no different than facing an octorok who does one heart when you have four. The same applies to Castlevania and a host of other games. In these sort of games, you gain new equipment (of which hearts could be counted) which allow you to proceed. That's not an RPG from any measure I can see. An adventure, certainly, an RPG, not at all in my mind, any more than Grand Theft Auto or Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction are.

I agree that Resident Evil 0 is an adventure; X-men Legends, however, is not. Resident Evil 4 is a hybrid, more of 3rd-person shooter with adventure elements, in a sharp reversal of what came before...but again, not an RPG, per se. Although, by the measurement of equipment increases; it could be. Since you have limited funds throughout the game, there is sacrifice in 'leveling up' your weapons. Is it worth it to increase the clip size of your handgun, or should you instead increase the reload speed of the rifle?

The concept of exploration is a slippery slope that I don't see as critical to an RPG, although games like X-men offer this as much as Wizardry, Ultima or Might&Magic traditionally did. In M&M or Eye of the Beholder, for example, you wandered through a grid, a 2d maze, really, and occasionally popped in a room and fought or bought something. This isn't really any different than wandering about a frozen tundra in X-men Legends, searching for the broadcast generators scattered about the map, defeating the guards and then destroying them to enter the base, gaining xp and replenishing health and mana along the way.

It's not a marketing ploy that adventure games disappeared...they simply stopped selling. Period. People grew tired of the lack of interaction many such games offered; many people grew tired of trying to engage in mindless point-and-click fests or running up against what the designer intended. In some adventure games, the perceived lack of freedom became a real problem. A common ploy in many FPS games is to present an environment that LOOKS expansive, but truly isn't....doors that are always locked, things you can climb over and so forth. Adventure games, traditionally, were rife these sort of things. Things improved over time, but some gamers were constantly frustrated by these limitations. You may have the dynamite and matches in your pocket, but you can't use them to open the safe...because the designer didn't want you to...you had to do things the way the designer intended...and sometimes that way was not very intuitive or fun..

 

[DonTadow]

Well, that's clearly subjective and I wouldn't try to argue otherwise. But from a sales standpoint, none of these games came anywhere close to the ones that were nominated. That's no mark of quality, by a long stretch, but clearly the awards were based on popularity...after all, I can't vote for Atelier Iris as best RPG of the year...because I haven't played it. I'm willing to bet the same applies for everyone who voted for the candidates.



Well, Link does gain more hearts...but again, that's a cosemtic difference. By that token, Metroid Prime 1/2 are RPGs. Link gaining additional hearts is no different than Samus getting an additional energy tank...a distinction made somewhat irrelevant as the enemies begin doing incrementally more damage through the course of the game. If you have twelve hearts when you face Gannondorf, but Gannondorf inflicts three hearts of damage when he hits...it's no different than facing an octorok who does one heart when you have four. The same applies to Castlevania and a host of other games. In these sort of games, you gain new equipment (of which hearts could be counted) which allow you to proceed. That's not an RPG from any measure I can see. An adventure, certainly, an RPG, not at all in my mind, any more than Grand Theft Auto or Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction are.

I agree that Resident Evil 0 is an adventure; X-men Legends, however, is not. Resident Evil 4 is a hybrid, more of 3rd-person shooter with adventure elements, in a sharp reversal of what came before...but again, not an RPG, per se. Although, by the measurement of equipment increases; it could be. Since you have limited funds throughout the game, there is sacrifice in 'leveling up' your weapons. Is it worth it to increase the clip size of your handgun, or should you instead increase the reload speed of the rifle?

The concept of exploration is a slippery slope that I don't see as critical to an RPG, although games like X-men offer this as much as Wizardry, Ultima or Might&Magic traditionally did. In M&M or Eye of the Beholder, for example, you wandered through a grid, a 2d maze, really, and occasionally popped in a room and fought or bought something. This isn't really any different than wandering about a frozen tundra in X-men Legends, searching for the broadcast generators scattered about the map, defeating the guards and then destroying them to enter the base, gaining xp and replenishing health and mana along the way.

It's not a marketing ploy that adventure games disappeared...they simply stopped selling. Period. People grew tired of the lack of interaction many such games offered; many people grew tired of trying to engage in mindless point-and-click fests or running up against what the designer intended. In some adventure games, the perceived lack of freedom became a real problem. A common ploy in many FPS games is to present an environment that LOOKS expansive, but truly isn't....doors that are always locked, things you can climb over and so forth. Adventure games, traditionally, were rife these sort of things. Things improved over time, but some gamers were constantly frustrated by these limitations. You may have the dynamite and matches in your pocket, but you can't use them to open the safe...because the designer didn't want you to...you had to do things the way the designer intended...and sometimes that way was not very intuitive or fun..

Not only is Xmen legends an adventure, it borders on an action game with rpg elemetns with its different levels. There's little exploration in the game. Essentially you get a mission and you go. There are no secret paths, side stories, or npc dialogue, outside of going around the mansion and talking to the people. There are a dozen games like that for the computer 10 years ago, they were called squad based action games. Sad thing is, Jade and Xmen are really good games, great ones almost because of how they blend their rpg elements into an action game, but they get trounced by the hardcore rpg community because they are "perping". Oh yeah... I said it.

I didnt mean to call it a marketing ploy. I like to say a marketing strategy. The word adventure does not sell on a game. You're absolotuly right. Action and RPGs do sell. The problem is by eliminating the category what was a marketing strategy began to become common practice, despite the fact that with some games it made no sense to call them either rpgs or action games.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I"ve played Diablo, its no where near an rpg. Or at least not a very good one, though its a great multiplayer game. Marketing put that game into the rpg category because when it came out, there wasn't much of an mmorpg category. The game is an mmorpg with an option to play it as an rpg, though, again its not the primary function of the game.

No offense, but what the hell are you talking about? Diablo is not MMORPG in any sense of the term.

Let's examine what the acronym "MMORPG" stands for, shall we?

Massive: MMORPG worlds are populated by a massive amount of players. As many as thousands can be online at once. Diablo has a player limit of 8. I doubt that anyone would consider that massive.

Multiplayer: Every time you log on to an MMORPG, it's a multiplayer game. The world is populated by other players, and there is not a single player option. Diablo has both single player and multiplayer play.

Online: MMORPGs are strictly online affairs hosted on servers maintained by the company that produced the game. With Diablo, having an internet connection is only required if you want to play online, and even then the games are hosted on the computers of individual players instead of the game company's servers.

Role Playing Game: Okay, Diablo does fall under this category. So at least you are partially right when defining Diablo as an MMORPG.

Real-time combat was a buzz word Square invented with their Final Fantasy's that caught on in the industry. In the end though, its all turn based, though not "your turn, my turn" more like you go on initiative 14 and I go on initaitive 20... gee where'd they get that from. However it is still turn based, and earlier articles where square was explaining the concept called it an innovation on turn based systems. Then later on the market moved towards just calling it "real-time combat". Though the only real time combat is when the actions immediately happen when the trigger is pulled.

Real-time combat in RPGs existed before Square started using it to describe combat in some of their Final Fantasy games (and even then, Square did not invent the term "real-time combat" in regards to RPGs). RPGs like Dungeon Master for the Atari ST, for example, featured real time combat before the Final Fantasy games started using real-time in combat.

And seriously man, you are the only person I've ever met who defines real time combat as "actions immediately happen when the trigger is pulled" as opposed to "combat happens in real time rather than being divided up into turns."

Sorry I meant to say Never Winters Nights and left out my desciption of Jade Empire. Jade Empire is not an RPG no more than Xman Legends is an RPG. And I like them both. I"m going by the original meaning of what RPGs are, not what a marketing deparment tells me. I've seen articles trying to label Grand theft autos as rpgs. I put it in the same category as Dark Cloud, the second castlevania and river city ransom.

WE gamers are in a world of marketing now. If they put it out there and call it that, that's what we tend to think it is, despite the missing elements.

Oh please. It's not some "marketing department" trying to tell you what to think. As time goes on and different game genres begin to blend together, the very definition of what constitutes a RPG is changing. Back in the early 1980s, CRPGs were basically nothing more than electronic versions of Pen & Paper Rulesets. Now, over 20 years later, RPGs still retain elements from their PnP roots (such as attributes represented by numbers or other methods of measure, character progression over time, etc), but the RPG genre has become a lot more varied from the cookie-cutter Ultima or Wizardry molds.

 

[DonTadow]

Diablo was designed for online play with teh option to play a solo game. It was designed to play with multiple people and online. SO multi player role playing game. The only difference is that diablo uses instanced dungeons and does not have in game communities, though they exist in the forums and pregame boards. Diablo's biggest selling point is not it as an RPG. It's not a very good one. It's pretty straight forward and linear. The game's primary function is as an online role playing game.

Square coined the phrase real-time combat. It was their big selling point for the game. It might have existed before Final Fantasy VI (I think thats when it started) but Square brought it to the masses and made it common place in games.

Let me get away from real-time vs. non-real time as I believe the defintions are getting jumbled. Bottom line is Role playing games are initiative based. This concept comes from table-top role playing games and has been instituted in every role playing game since. If it doesnt have initiative based combat, its not a role playing game. A duck quacked 30 years ago. Why would a duck not quack now?. You can call a bird a lot of things but if it doesnt quack (and taste delcious with orange sauce) its not a duck. In other words, the term role playing derived from its tabletop meaning and until this day, all table top rpgs use initaitive for combat. Every RPG from Wizardry and ultima on down has used iniative as combat.

Now Zelda, was first categorized as an adventure, because of its rpg elements and yet non initiative like style of fighting. Why is something like Jade Empire, which is the same design now in the rpg category.

This isn't just my defintion, this is based off of 30 years of the genre.

I'm not claiming you to be a marketing exec pushing his wares, I claim you're the victim of marketing. Execs have been pushing these "hybrid" games as if their the next best thing when they aren't. X-men legends is not innovative nor an rpg. It's a great action game, which is why its so popular.

No offense, but what the hell are you talking about? Diablo is not MMORPG in any sense of the term.

Let's examine what the acronym "MMORPG" stands for, shall we?

Massive: MMORPG worlds are populated by a massive amount of players. As many as thousands can be online at once. Diablo has a player limit of 8. I doubt that anyone would consider that massive.

Multiplayer: Every time you log on to an MMORPG, it's a multiplayer game. The world is populated by other players, and there is not a single player option. Diablo has both single player and multiplayer play.

Online: MMORPGs are strictly online affairs hosted on servers maintained by the company that produced the game. With Diablo, having an internet connection is only required if you want to play online, and even then the games are hosted on the computers of individual players instead of the game company's servers.

Role Playing Game: Okay, Diablo does fall under this category. So at least you are partially right when defining Diablo as an MMORPG.



Real-time combat in RPGs existed before Square started using it to describe combat in some of their Final Fantasy games (and even then, Square did not invent the term "real-time combat" in regards to RPGs). RPGs like Dungeon Master for the Atari ST, for example, featured real time combat before the Final Fantasy games started using real-time in combat.

And seriously man, you are the only person I've ever met who defines real time combat as "actions immediately happen when the trigger is pulled" as opposed to "combat happens in real time rather than being divided up into turns."



Oh please. It's not some "marketing department" trying to tell you what to think. As time goes on and different game genres begin to blend together, the very definition of what constitutes a RPG is changing. Back in the early 1980s, CRPGs were basically nothing more than electronic versions of Pen & Paper Rulesets. Now, over 20 years later, RPGs still retain elements from their PnP roots (such as attributes represented by numbers or other methods of measure, character progression over time, etc), but the RPG genre has become a lot more varied from the cookie-cutter Ultima or Wizardry molds.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Diablo was designed for online play with teh option to play a solo game. It was designed to play with multiple people and online. SO multi player role playing game. The only difference is that diablo uses instanced dungeons and does not have in game communities, though they exist in the forums and pregame boards. Diablo's biggest selling point is not it as an RPG. It's not a very good one. It's pretty straight forward and linear. The game's primary function is as an online role playing game.

No. It really isn't. While multiplayer functionality was a goal for the Diablo designers from the very start, it was designed to have both single-player and multiplayer modes. You seem to be implying that Diablo was created as a multiplayer game with single player added as an afterthought, which simply isn't the case.

Square coined the phrase real-time combat. It was their big selling point for the game. It might have existed before Final Fantasy VI (I think thats when it started) but Square brought it to the masses and made it common place in games.

So... Square coined the phrase real-time combat even though it existed prior to them using it?

Let me get away from real-time vs. non-real time as I believe the defintions are getting jumbled. Bottom line is Role playing games are initiative based. This concept comes from table-top role playing games and has been instituted in every role playing game since. If it doesnt have initiative based combat, its not a role playing game. A duck quacked 30 years ago. Why would a duck not quack now?. You can call a bird a lot of things but if it doesnt quack (and taste delcious with orange sauce) its not a duck. In other words, the term role playing derived from its tabletop meaning and until this day, all table top rpgs use initaitive for combat. Every RPG from Wizardry and ultima on down has used iniative as combat.

So now the definition of an RPG is "A Game that Uses Initiative in Combat"? Earlier in this thread, you were claiming that RPGs where characterized by having turn-based combat and exploration.

Now Zelda, was first categorized as an adventure, because of its rpg elements and yet non initiative like style of fighting. Why is something like Jade Empire, which is the same design now in the rpg category.

Because having initiative is not a characteristic of RPGs, not to mention Jade Empire assigned attributes, character progression, customization, exploration, optional subquests, and had lots of other elements that make it an RPG at its core.

This isn't just my defintion, this is based off of 30 years of the genre.

I'm not claiming you to be a marketing exec pushing his wares, I claim you're the victim of marketing.

I say tomato, you say tomatoe. You call me a victim of marketing, I call you an adherant of outdated (and arbitrary) definitions.

Execs have been pushing these "hybrid" games as if their the next best thing when they aren't.

The critical acclaim, awards, and high sales figures would disagree with this statement.

 

[DonTadow]

No. It really isn't. While multiplayer functionality was a goal for the Diablo designers from the very start, it was designed to have both single-player and multiplayer modes. You seem to be implying that Diablo was created as a multiplayer game with single player added as an afterthought, which simply isn't the case.

The designers, well and this depends on what interview you read, played heavily on the online functions as the game was designed for, however, to save their skin, the game could also be designed for solo play. The designers of never winters night did hte same thing, and it was a great move, as the online functions of neverwinter night did not explode like they hoped.

So... Square coined the phrase real-time combat even though it existed prior to them using it?



So now the definition of an RPG is "A Game that Uses Initiative in Combat"? Earlier in this thread, you were claiming that RPGs where characterized by having turn-based combat and exploration.

Square coined teh phrase making it popular by giving it a name and a high profile. This is true with a lot of products. There are a ton of inventions that existed but weren't noticed until a big company gave it a name.

Initiative = turn based. That should clear it up. In the earlier gaming days it was not feasible to do full initiative based games so you'd have party based initiative games or turn-based games. The name stuck, however the games have always been iniative based and are the same thing.

Because having initiative is not a characteristic of RPGs, not to mention Jade Empire assigned attributes, character progression, customization, exploration, optional subquests, and had lots of other elements that make it an RPG at its core.

the problem with this is that without the initiative factor, then grand theft auto and that whole line of games are rpgs under your definition. Oh yeah, and don't forget the zeldas, the resident evils, the god of wars, and all other games that allow you to upgrade and play with pc stats in a free roaming environment. The only reason you're calling Jade empire an RPG is because the company told you to.

Definitions are rarely ever outdated. At its core, whatever is being defined is still as it is defined. I think its a big deal in this discussion to differinate what is a marketing term and what is a definition. A role playing game, which is based off of its tabletop predeccsor, contains initiative combat and exploration as well as player development. Those elements still help define the tabletop predecssor that the games are based off of. Thus they should still define games in the computer and video game market, as they did for the last 30 years.

All this action roleplaying, adventure role playing, role playing kungfu is just marketing crap to pull in certain types of gamers. How many people would have picked it up if it wasn't coined an action rpg? Same with xmen legends.. which had a bad reputation of having bad xmen games previously?



The critical acclaim, awards, and high sales figures would disagree with this statement.[/QUOTE]