Violence (i.e. action) is equally an choice in most cases.

I guess that depends on what difficulty you play at. At the highest difficulty setting, action really isn't a viable option since you can only take a few hits before dying. In Thief, you can use lethal weapons, sure. But that's clearly not the focus of the gameplay. Neither Splinter Cell nor Thief encourage combat. Call of Duty, Gears of War, etc, encourage and revolve around combat which is why they are classified as action games. CoD4 has a couple of missions that feature stealth but stealth is clearly not the focus of the game. The Tomb Raider games feature combat too but you spend 90% of the games platforming and solving puzzles, which is why the games aren't classified (correctly) as action games.

So it's only an RPG in your eyes if you can choose between good and evil?

No, it's an RPG if it gives you wide spectrum of moral choices, including options that might be considered "evil." If you don't get any choice in such things, that greatly limits the kind of roles you can play and makes it less of an RPG and more of an adventure game. Gothic and Risen, for example, don't let you make many high-level choices. You have to choose to align yourself with one faction but aside from that, quests are pretty linear.

Thief isn't an action game, it's a stealth game. If it were an action game, you'd be encouraged to go around killing everything.

Okay, but in a game like Splinter Cell, stealth is but a choice. Violence (i.e. action) is equally an choice in most cases. For that matter, you were armed with lethal weapons in Thief. I am starting to get a headache from this. Stringent genre templates do not apply.

Not exactly. You have to play the role of a city planner and you have to keep your citizens happy. You can't be a tyrannical dictator, you can't conquer other people's cities, etc.

So it's only an RPG in your eyes if you can choose between good and evil? I don't remember the early Wizardry or Might and Magic games giving a whole lot in the way of moral choice (I think that was largely begun by the Ultima series), but I would argue that they are most definitely RPG's. And just saying "an RPG has to have role-playing" (well, DUH!) is way less stringent than your actual definition of an RPG" seems to be. I would agree with that sentiment, at any rate. But the list of games that let you play a role is a lot longer than would fit in the traditional RPG category.

It bothers me when a game is advertised as an RPG but ends up being little more than a shooter with stats.

I'm with you on that one. I'm starting to hate the term "RPG-lite".

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2009, 23:54.

You don't. Thief games are centered around stealth and non-lethal take-downs.

Thief isn't an action game, it's a stealth game. If it were an action game, you'd be encouraged to go around killing everything.

You don't. Trackmania Sunrise has you competing against the clock solo on user made creations.

The times to beat are set by other players, aren't they? You are still competing for the best time and as such, are still racing (indirectly) against other players. In any case, the point of any racing game is to be the fastest. That's the defining mechanic of any racing game. Twisted Metal, for example, is not a racing game because speed is completely irrelevant.

it gets my hackles up whenever I hear someone saying "if you are making a shooter, you have to include this", or "if you are making an RPG, only this will work."

Except there are certain things you have to include in specific genres. If you're making a shooter, there has to be shooting. If you're making a stealth game, there has to be stealth. If you're making a racing game, there has to be racing. If you're making a roleplaying game, there has to be roleplaying. If you are making a game that doesn't fit into any of these genres, that's fine. The problem is when people make a game in one genre and claim that it belongs to another genre. As a gamer, I have certain expectations and standards from different genres. It bothers me when a game is advertised as an RPG but ends up being little more than a shooter with stats. Similarly, it bothers me when a game is being advertised as a stealth game but you spend more time in it blowing shit up and shooting dudes in the face (Splinter Cell: Conviction, I'm looking at you). If you don't believe in genres, that's fine. You just shouldn't refer to any in your arguments.

If choice is the major prerequisite for an RPG, then wouldn't Simcity be a role-playing game in the strictest sense?

Not exactly. You have to play the role of a city planner and you have to keep your citizens happy. You can't be a tyrannical dictator, you can't conquer other people's cities, etc.

Why do you need to kill stuff in action game?

You don't. Thief games are centered around stealth and non-lethal take-downs.

Why do you have to race against other drivers in racing games?

You don't. Trackmania Sunrise has you competing against the clock solo on user made creations.

Point is, not everything needs to be pigeon-holed into a rigid genre template, nor should it. There is still room left for creativity regardless of genre, and it gets my hackles up whenever I hear someone saying "if you are making a shooter, you have to include this", or "if you are making an RPG, only this will work."

If choice is the major prerequisite for an RPG, then wouldn't Simcity be a role-playing game in the strictest sense? You are making the choices of a city planner, role-playing the role of Mayor, all from a God's-eye point of view. This isn't to argue that Simcity is an RPG, but rather to illustrate how limited and insufficient most peoples' genre definitions are.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2009, 22:38.

Not trying to be a dick, but my answer to this is simply "Why?"

Why do you need to kill stuff in action game? Why do you have to race against other drivers in racing games? A roleplaying game has to be about roleplaying. If you can do everything and never have to make any choices, you don't have to roleplay.

That said, having stats doesn't automatically make you an RPG. Diablo has a lot of stats but all these stats pertain to how you kill stuff and aren't particularly meaningful. Oblivion has tons of stats but you can max them all out and become Grandmaster of every guild, as well as do every sidequest. The most important part of an RPG is ultimately choice. If you can solve each scenario in a variety of ways and if you have high-level choices in all the quests, that's enough to qualify as an RPG. In a game like that, realistic damage would work because the role-playing isn't so much about your character's abilities as it is about choice. If an NPC has something you want, you can choose to blow his head off and take it. Or you can pickpocket it while he's sleeping. Or you can persuade him to give it to you. The benefit of stats is that choices aren't all equally viable and as such, you are forced to stick with a specific role. If you suck at pickpocketing and aren't a smooth-talker, you may have to shoot the guy.

In an RPG, your stats, not personal skill, should define the limitations of your character.

Not trying to be a dick, but my answer to this is simply "Why?"

There are different flavors of shooters (Quake-like hop-fests vs. war sims), strategy games (Turn-based games vs real-time strategy games, small unit strategy games versus campaign theater strategy games), racing games (hardcore sims vs Arcade-y NFS type games), etc etc. Why is there only one rigid template for what an RPG should be?

To me, there isn't.

In Deus Ex, I think your weapon skills actually did have an impact on damage, just not to the degree that Mass Effect and FO3 had. In Deus Ex, your weapon skills definitely made it easier to use weapons but you didn't need the skills in order to be effective. That's the main issue here. In an RPG, your stats, not personal skill, should define the limitations of your character.

While I don't totally disagree with much of what you wrote, I remain at a loss as to why you think semi-realistic damage and Stats are mutually exclusive, regardless of what genre we are talking about. In Deus Ex, (a definite genre-bending game) a higher stat in Sniper Rifles kept your crosshairs much steadier and allowed them to zoom in much faster, 2 things that were extremely beneficial results of higher stats and have NOTHING to do with the damage the rifle bullet would do on impact.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2009, 21:28.

Stats force you to roleplay. Without stats, there's no real need since your own skills as a gamer are most important. For example, in Risen, I was able to defeat all the fighters in the Bandit Camp without upgrading any of my combat skills or attributes. This is bad because it means that my personal skill completely bypassed the limitations of my character, removing the whole role-playing aspect of the game. RPGs are about choice and if I can do everything, my choices aren't all that meaningful.

That said, I do agree that an RPG can be made without stats. It would just have to offer lots of high level choices outside of character development. However, in the context of this debate, stats are considered a key part of RPGs.

As for STALKER, it isn't open-ended enough to qualify as an RPG. You can join two factions but there isn't much high level or low level choice aside from that. You can't talk your way through situations and stealth is rarely a viable option, nor do you really have any high level choice in the missions themselves. You either do them or you don't.

Deus Ex was an awesome game and while it was definitely more open-ended than STALKER, it still wasn't quite open-ended enough to qualify as an RPG.

Regardless of the fact that a projectile is equally deadly when fired by a trained veteran killer and a complete firearm neophyte, there are tons of things that have to go into figuring out whether that projectile makes its way to the target, and this is where stats would come in.

Are we talking about chance-to-hit here? I'm not sure how far we're going into RPG territory for this discussion. Does the player still have precise control over their movements and aim (like in Mass Effect and Deus Ex) or is it more hands off, ala Fallout (1&2) and Baldur's Gate? If we're talking Fallout-style, then I actually do agree that stats and realistic damage models can work, since if you have low stats, you won't be able to hit anything. Conversely, if the player has more control over their character, the importance of stats are negated because you can always compensate with your personal skill and tactics.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2009, 21:25.

That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said that skills are completely irrelevant when you kill anyone with a shotgun blast to the face...

Fair enough, I misunderstood your point, though I'm no closer to agreeing with you about the fact that realistic damage modeling cannot be in an RPG, because it absolutely, unequivocally can be.

Have you actually played Deus Ex?

Um, yes I have, Mr. Snotty McSnottenstein, as I know I've told you countless times that I have. And while we're on the subjectof Deus Ex, on the one hand, you say that realistic, or even quasi-realistic combat cannot work in an RPG, then you turn right around and hold up Deus Ex, obviously one of your most favorite games of all time, and an RPG (of sorts) to boot, as an example of a game that uses realistic damage modeling. I just don't get it.

Most likely, But you don't play as 9-year-old girls in videogames and gunfights in videogames are generally much easier than gunfights in reality. In addition, tactics aren't the same as stats. Knowing how to use properly use cover and flanking maneuvers is knowledge, not a skill.

Well, obviously you don't play as a 9 year old, but it was simply used for starkness of comparison. You are really just arguing semantics here. You are splitting hairs about tactics and stats, but the point is stats simply simulate the learned proficiency over time that one would realistically gain through training, practice, and experience. Regardless of the fact that a projectile is equally deadly when fired by a trained veteran killer and a complete firearm neophyte, there are tons of things that have to go into figuring out whether that projectile makes its way to the target, and this is where stats would come in.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2009, 21:15.

The traditional CRPG stats/leveling-oriented play is a hold over from RPG pen & paper board games. It's also a hold over from when video games were much more limited in how well they could simulate an environment. I'm not saying that this is ridiculous or anything, there is of course room for that kind of play too. But I would like to see less of that kind of detachment from the action. I don't like how people sometimes attribute the RPG genre to stats & leveling.

I think the first STALKER game is a good example of a skill-based-action RPG. It's essentially an Oblivion/Fallout 3 open-world RPG with shooter-style gameplay.

I was playing Deus Ex a few months back, for the first time really. Honestly I don't like the game much, partly because of how goofy the combat is (and partly because of how cheesy/preachy the dialog can be). It pretends to be more like a shooter, with real-time action, but it's really just a hybrid of the usual "RPG" elements and doesn't work very well IMO. I pushed through about half of the game before losing interest... Fallout 3 plays like this too, but less obviously. And of course so does Mass Effect.

I found Mass Effect to be a decent romp. It's a sci-fi movie. I'd call it an action/adventure game. It's a very on-rails experience. Very by-the-numbers, go there next and follow through the dialogs and do what the next guy says. The "choices" you are given feel very fake most of the time. The equipment aspect to the game is rather broken and lame, with the numerous Gun IX and Armor IV stuff. And the squad AI is horrible... But the atmosphere is great!

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2009, 21:18.

I find it kind of shocking that you believe that you somehow have to have some high level skill before you can be able to shoot someone at point blank range and hit them (and most certainly kill them).

That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said that skills are completely irrelevant when you kill anyone with a shotgun blast to the face, which is why traditional RPG skill systems and realistic damage models don't mix.

But if she were in an extended firefight with someone trained in close quarters combat with a shotgun, I'd bet you she'd lose every time.

Most likely, But you don't play as 9-year-old girls in videogames and gunfights in videogames are generally much easier than gunfights in reality. In addition, tactics aren't the same as stats. Knowing how to use properly use cover and flanking maneuvers is knowledge, not a skill.

Like I said before, Deus Ex pretty much did everything you describe. Your stats affected your accuracy, how long it took to focus your aim, reload times, etc. However, in the end, the only thing that really mattered was damage. If you had a shotgun or any other powerful weapon, your skills were irrelevant because one hit would kill almost any enemy. Hell, once you got the Dragon Sword, that's all you needed. Just run up to an enemy and hack away. The weapon would kill anything in one or two hits.

Have you actually played Deus Ex?

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2009, 20:03.

Hey - Loomy, trollmaster apprentice, is back!

lol shut up you stupid nerds

a guy was surprised it takes so many bullets to kill someone in the future

a reasonable observation

get over it

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2009, 14:42.

Realism takes a backseat to enjoyable gameplay though. The only place realism is the first priority is in a simulator. RPG, shooter, whatever, it's all about providing enjoyable combat. Enjoyable combat doesn't involve one-shot kills on everyone, nor does it involve emptying three clips into each enemy before it goes down.

Gotta have some balance.

To say that a one-hit kill with a shotgun to the face somehow eliminates stats is absolutely preposterous.

I agree. If realism makes stats irrelevant, then why are marines trained so well? If the OP was right you could just give a shotgun to a bunch of normal guys and get the same result.

If you're going to disagree, at least explain why.

Well, it's already been stated. Saying that an RPG cannot have realistic combat is basically pigeonholing RPG's in an overly-limiting way. I find it kind of shocking that you believe that you somehow have to have some high level skill before you can be able to shoot someone at point blank range and hit them (and most certainly kill them). To me that's patently ridiculous. My 9 year-old daughter can do that. But if she were in an extended firefight with someone trained in close quarters combat with a shotgun, I'd bet you she'd lose every time. He can reload faster. Aim steadier. Handle recoil better. Utilize cover more intelligently. On and on. His "stats" (or the special skills he was taught to use in CQB training) will help him win every time.

This is such an obvious concept that I'm starting to wonder if you just don't like arguing for argument's sake. To say that a one-hit kill with a shotgun to the face somehow eliminates stats is absolutely preposterous.

The only way realistic damage and RPGs can mix is if you are only given high level choices where stats don't matter

This is flatly, plainly NOT TRUE. I can't state it any more emphatically than that. I don't agree, I won't agree, because I can't agree with such an erroneous and illogical opinion.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2009, 04:05.

Totally disagree.

If you're going to disagree, at least explain why.

And would it have been any less of an RPG if it had? I say absolutely not.

Um, yes? In a role-playing game, your character's stats are important. They are what define the role you play. However, in reality, you don't need to be particularly skilled to kill someone with a gun, especially a shotgun. Even if you are a Navy SEAL, the bullets you fire will do the same amount of damage as anybody else firing the same gun.

In fact, Deus Ex's more realistic damage model negated many of the role-playing elements. You could be completely untrained in the use of shotguns but still equip them and shoot dudes in the face for an instant kill.

The only way realistic damage and RPGs can mix is if you are only given high level choices where stats don't matter.

There is no "thinking outside the box" for this problem.

Totally disagree.

There have been games that have done the things you've mentioned (Deus Ex comes to mind) but even that didn't have realistic damage.

And would it have been any less of an RPG if it had? I say absolutely not. It would have changed the feel of the game somewhat, but remember, a "super-augmented" soldier can be explained away as being able to absorb lots of extra damage. Peons on the other hand would die nice and quick.

and even if combat was super-lethal - you could still have stats and skills affect aiming, speed of draw, rate of fire, range, recovery, damage resistance, etc. etc. etc.

That's all well and good but if a game is realistic, stats are pretty irrelevant. Just grab a shotgun, run up to an enemy, pull the trigger. Guaranteed kill. It doesn't matter how accurate you are, how quickly you can draw your weapon, reload, etc. A shotgun at point blank range will kill anything, just like getting shot with a single bullet will take down pretty much anyone. You simply can't have realistic damage in an RPG, particularly one with guns.

There is no "thinking outside the box" for this problem. There have been games that have done the things you've mentioned (Deus Ex comes to mind) but even that didn't have realistic damage.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2009, 01:45.