Even states that action role playing games are a loose sub genre often associated with RPG…it contends that turn based combat is a inherent characteristic of RPGs.
Check and mate:)
A real RPG is Dungeons and Dragons.
Most games classified as RPG, barely count as such.
I thought MGS4 wrapped up the Solid series rather well at the time.
I remember coming away from it going “You know, this is to MGS what Matrix Revolutions SHOULD have been to The Matrix”. I remember being notably shocked at how much sense it made by the end.
No, it said that the subgenre of action rpg is “loosely defined” and that this subgenre dates back to the 80’s.
Also where does it say that turn based is “an inherent characteristic” because every time something about turn based combat it’s usually preceded by the words “generally”, “most”, “often” or proceeded by a reference to action rpg’s defying this trope. It states that combat based on indirect choices is the most common aspect of the genre, but it never, EVER, states that it’s not a role playing game if it has action.
Seriously, I don’t care what source you site. Dark Souls has more role playing then Final Fantasy, no matter what way you look at it. If Dark Souls is not a RPG even though it has ten times more true role playing then anything else on the market, then calling the genre “rpg” is pointless since it obviously has nothing to do with roll playing.
Exactly. Final Fantasy is not a fucking rpg. There is no role playing in it. If I were going to call it anything, I’d call it a story telling game. But role playing? What role playing?
RPGs are clearly defined by turn based…the damn thing just got proved. No matter how you slice it, dark souls is a deviation and at best a action adventure and not a RPG…if dark souls is a RPG then fight night is a fighting game.
RPGS are not defined by turn based…
RPG’s are defined by Role playing; which is why its called ROLE-PLAYING GAME, not TURN BASED GAME.
No. The article you linked to says it’s a characteristic of rpg’s. Find me one quote from the article that says in no uncertain terms that “it’s not an rpg if it doesn’t have turn based combat”.
Saying something is not an rpg because it doesn’t have ONE characteristic of rpg’s but has pretty much ALL the other ones, is like showing me an article on shmups which says “shmups generally have screen clearing smart bombs” and then attempting to argue that Rayforce is not a shmup because it doesn’t have a smart bomb.
But you role play in Dark Souls. You don’t do that in Metroid or other adventure games. Furthermore you role play in Dark Souls vastly more then most rpg’s, especially rpg’s like Final Fantasy which feature a cast with their own clearly defined personalities, none of whom serve in any way as an avatar of the player. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that a true player avatar is the true defining characteristic of all role playing games.
Fight Night (or Final Fight, which I assume your referring to because I don’t remember Fight Night) WOULD be a fighting game, except we already have a genre for describing single player games based around fighting and level based progression: Beat em ups.
Fight Night is a fighting game, a boxing fighting game.
As a frame of reference, i have a question. FF doesnt let you create, or extensively customize your character do they? I dont play them thats why i ask.
But the reason i have that question is because I thought of most RPGS ive played and i cant think of a single one that doesnt let you create your character from the ground up(Elder Scrolls), or let you mold the main character into whatever you want(Mass Effect). The sole exception being borderlands. It is classified in the RPG genre. Whats your take on that?
You technically role play as the main character so it makes it in I guess, but it barely makes it into the genre, imo.
It varies based on the game. The first Final Fantasy let you make characters, but you couldn’t customize them at all. For every game afterwards, you didn’t create them, but they were predefined characters with their own abilities and personalities.
The series introduced more customization to their combat abilities as the series went on (job system, etc.) but still never to the degree of something like Mass Effect or Elder Scrolls.
My mistake, I was thinking of Final Fight or whatever the game with Haggar is.
This a thousand times over. This is what I’ve been trying to say this whole time. I feel this needs to be copy and pasted a thousand times in a wall of text.
Let me restate one more time.
Answer me this:
In Dark Souls you role play heavily. There is no arguing that. A single informed look at the game proves this.
Now, Dark Souls is obviously a video game. No arguing that.
Now if Dark Souls is a video game where you role play heavily, and this role playing is an intended, vital, and large element of the game…How the hell is it not a role playing game?
Sooner or later you’re going to have to break down and start arguing with whether the role playing content of Dark Souls is in fact role playing (a pointless argument, because as I said one look at the gameplay design shows quite a bit of role playing), because there is no logical argument that a game featuring heavy role playing that is integral to the games design and experience (which Dark Souls is) is not a role playing game.
By saying role playing games don’t need to have role playing (which is what you are implying by saying that Final Fantasy is a rpg and Dark Souls is not) and that the genre is defined by anything else but role playing, is like saying that action games don’t need to have action in them…they are defined by some other arbitrary characteristic generally found within the genre.
I also like how the very article you site as proof (which does not in anyway state the things you are claiming it states) recognizes that action rpg’s exist…when your whole argument is that action rpg’s don’t exist, and are a “perversion” which are not truly related to rpg’s but rather adventure…even though they do have roll playing and the article acknowledges the existence of games that combine action based combat and roll playing, and acknowledges them as a legitimate subgenre of the rpg genre. A quick search of Dark Souls on the same site immediately labels it under “action rpg” as its genre, as well.
Way to contradict yourself.
Not a fighting game, it is a boxing simulator.
Aka a game focused on competitive fighting, with the mechanics focusing on and exploring the combat in depth.
Aka a fighting game.
Sports sim. Supertroll has shown me the way.
Madden has tackling in it there fore it must be a fighter.
I think every final fantasy game since final fantasy 7 has been absolute recycled garbage with bad new ideas loaded into it
Sports/Fighting game. Besides the fact that the sport in question is fighting…
Oh and since fencing is a sport, if you both pick Raphael in Soul Calibur, it’s no longer a fighting game, but a sports sim. Same goes for picking any fighting game character who’s fighting style is based on a real world martial arts sport.
The tackling is not for the purpose of fighting or combat.
You can shoot projectiles in street fighter, therefore it’s a shmup.
Fight Night isn’t a fighting game, the same way Gradius or Contra aren’t shooters. FGs have an ambiguous label that could apply to different games (like boxing or MMA titles) in the lexical sense, but the game designs and playing mechanics in SF, Marvel, VF etc belong to a different genre.
tldr, you know exactly what the hell I mean when I say “fighting game.”
Semantics.
Gradius and Contra are shooters. Unless you mean they aren’t shmups, (Shoot em Ups) in which case I disagree.
Fun fact “shooting game” is a popular alternative genre moniker to “shmup” often used by shmup fans. The abbreviation “STG” has also become quite popular lately, as well.
Yes I do, and that’s what I disagree with. I absolutely reject this notion that a game completely (or almost completely) based on competitive player vs player fighting, with the mechanics and design of the game exploring the combat in depth, is not a fighter. Saying that a game isn’t a “fighter” because it doesn’t have sf2 styled controls or whatever is incredibly close minded in my opinion.
A fighting game to me is a game where you competitively fight one on one against other players(though the option to have more players in a match doesn’t detract from this, as long as it’s optional or not the primary focus or appeal of the game) , where fighting is the main and primary focus of the game, and where the combat mechanics and design promote strategy and skill based play, and are the main focus of the game. I don’t care whether it’s about weapons or boxing or super saiyans, it’s a fighting game to me.
If you think Fight Night and Punch-Out are exactly the same thing as Street Fighter and Tekken, then there’s no problem here. I see a difference, but hey that’s me.
However if you do see a difference, stop getting hung up on the name attached to the category of games that most agree that they belong in. “Fighting game” isn’t supposed to mean anything inherently or literally. It’s just a name like a pet dog has a name.
Just because you shoot things in Gradius and Contra doesn’t mean they belong in the same genre as Gears or COD. But more people these days call Halo Gears etc “shooters,” and that’s not what Contra or Metal Slug are, so fans call them shmups, run-and-gunners etc. to kill the confusion.
I’m not calling your argument stupid but playing around with words, labels and dictionary terms is how slimy politicians and defense lawyers try to fool the public into thinking they aren’t lying their asses off.