hylian_elf wrote:

Read my post dude. I said if. So.... if at some point Halo required you to find and use a certain more powerful gun to proceed... would it be an RPG? The more powerful gun would indeed change your skillset just as light arrows in Zelda do (according to your logic). Edit: you can choose not to use certain items in Zelda unless you have to. So you can choose to drop the powerful weapon in Halo until/unless you have to use it. No?

If in Halo, you had to use a certain kind of weapon to complete a section of the game, and if after completing the said section, the player was made to use the same weapon in the same way repeatedly to progress, then yeah... I'd try to argue that the game is in a similar class to the likes of Zelda...

The frequency (and necessity) of such a mechanic should be a factor though... Is that a fair concession?

I think at that point ('shoot that with this to get here'... 'shoot that with this to get there'... etc), it becomes a key rather than a weapon (in the context of the title's story mode at least).

Removing that gun from the games' design will then impede your progress through it, so securing that gun/key then becomes a prerequisite to the completion of the game...

And yeah... even if it's only one weapon, if it's frequent enough, then I'd try to argue that it does place the game in a similar design class, but certainly not in the same qualitative class, because we're talking about Zelda, innit?

But now someone will have to tell me that Zelda is not an RPG...

You do have to pick up and use the Splaser in Halo 3. Although, if it applies to guns than it should also apply to vehicles too, right? Warthog run at the end of CE. In fact earlier on, in Two Betrayals, you're required to use a Banshee.

n0face wrote:

I thought the defining nature of a role playing game was shaping a characters play style through stats and upgrades so at the end you can end up with a different character to somebody else. Batman always is batman.

I would say so, yes. Playing an RPG you expect to have moe control over the way your character develops. The again a lot of older JRPGs have characters that learn set new spells/skills as they level up, so it's not absolute. RPGs are also defined by inexhaustible enemies for the point of experience harvesting, but we'll never really pin these things down.

We all share (I assume) a general notion of what RPG means, and are talking about the same sort of games when we use it. I mean, we have an RPG thread and everyone seeme to know what to talk about in there without any guidelines.

In the end, if 'RPG' did refer to any game that had hints of character development, it wouldn't be very useful for the purpose of describing a particular type of game.

I rather imagine they'll say who gives a fuck, just play it.

mk64 wrote:

Being able to play a game through without levelling up (batman as the example) is playing a game not in the way it's intended and an exception.

That's what I think, but I know my idea is far from watertight.

JonB wrote:

I thought the defining nature of a role playing game was shaping a characters play style through stats and upgrades so at the end you can end up with a different character to somebody else. Batman always is batman.

I would say so, yes. Playing an RPG you expect to have moe control over the way your character develops. The again a lot of older JRPGs have characters that learn set new spells/skills as they level up, so it's not absolute. RPGs are also defined by inexhaustible enemies for the point of experience harvesting, but we'll never really pin these things down. We all share (I assume) a general notion of what RPG means, and are talking about the same sort of games when we use it. I mean, we have an RPG thread and everyone seeme to know what to talk about in there without any guidelines. In the end, if 'RPG' did refer to any game that had hints of character development, it wouldn't be very useful for the purpose of describing a particular type of game.

 

Agreed. 

With your definition in mind, I've been questioning the use of the term 'RPG' in my example... And tbf, I've tried to disclaim it once or twice.  

That said, the idea of categorizing games that require you to alter your player state to progress, doesn't change. And in using that idea as a classification tool, I feel I can place both Final Fantasy and Zelda in the same class... 

I'm still reluctant to place Halo into the same class though, because even if you do occasionally have to use a particular type of gun or get into a vehicle, Halo's design doesn't usually require you to run around looking for specific keys to finish levels... Any example that one can cite, can arguably be an attempt by the designer to break up the pace of the game. 

To further muddy the waters, I'm quite happy to place GTA - San Andreas alongside Zelda and Final Fantasy (in some parts of that game, CJ has to be in a certain quantifiable state to progress), but the older games? Going by what I've written so far, then yes... I'd have to place the older GTA games into the same design class as Zelda. But in the older games, I never have to make a permanent change to my avatar to progress...

@dyno But what is the purpose of this 'class'? What role does it fulfil in talking about games?

There's no point in inventing classifications, no matter what words you use to name them, if they don't have an application. I can't see why I'd ever want to use a word to encompass games as diverse as Zelda, Final Fantasy and GTA.

So Zelda has similar core gameplay/mechanics etc to Final Fantasy, Baldur's Gate, Dragon Quest, Elder Scrolls etc? If a game is so far removed from the majority of games you can immediately think of then does it really belong to that genre?

Zelda plays nothing like any game you'll find mentioned in our own RPG thread.

Adventure game used to cover it nicely.

But how should we classify this thread?

But can't we level up?

Timewasting +1

So I reckon it's more RPG.

dynamiteReady wrote:

Applications? 
It's just another way to examine games, innit?

But what if it's a way that nobody ever feels the need to use.

I could come up with all sorts of classifications - games that mostly use the colour brown, games that use the R trigger more than other buttons, games that have irritating voiceovers - but if we don't ever need them when talking about games it's pointless.

Classifications arise because of a need to quickly differentiate one thing from another. That's why the ones we have, although not very precise, do the job that needs doing.

True.

What if I type

Go North

Choose your own adventure shoorly

JonB wrote:

Applications?  It's just another way to examine games, innit?

But what if it's a way that nobody ever feels the need to use. I could come up with all sorts of classifications - games that mostly use the colour brown, games that use the R trigger more than other buttons, games that have irritating voiceovers - but if we don't ever need them when talking about games it's pointless. Classifications arise because of a need to quickly differentiate one thing from another. That's why the ones we have, although not very precise, do the job that needs doing.

That's the thing... Those categories that you've brought up aren't entirely useless, and someone, somewhere (Ninty, very likely...), does maintain a statistical analysis of games that use the R-trigger.

That we wouldn't find such a discussion interesting is a completely different matter...

Identifying games that are designed to channel ones progress, versus those designed with a loose rule-set interests me though*...

But fuck it, really. 

As always, I'm sure I can find other places online that have examined the idea in some detail already.

*The difference between TWD and Journey that is... In it's extremity.