What matters in a rpg for you?
What matters in a rpg for you?
This phonograph "reads" a rock’s rough surface and transforms it into beautiful ambient music pic.twitter.com/PYDzYsWWf8
— Surreal Videos (@SurrealVideos) March 3, 2023
Community-driven video game blog & discussion
Player agency
I'm a Role Player type guy, with a secondary interest in 'Gamer' type stuff, so I like CRPGs and JRPGs with highly customizable character builds. The two Pathfinder CRPGs were decent at both so I really hope Owlcat doesn't switch to PF2e or Rogue Trader after their next game.
Any of these three generalizations are good if done well.
what matters is I want to fuck all of the characters in this comic
Dropped your crown, king
>0000
>what matters is I want to fuck all of the characters in this comic
Based
Either good story like PS:T or Bloodlines, good gameplay, like BG2 or temple of elemental evil, or "actual" roleplaying like the age of decadence are good approaches.
On the other hand, you have unredimable shit like Pathfinder, with garbage build autism, a shit story and garbage chars.
The gamer is correct though. That's why WoW and some other mmorpgs are the only real RPG games left. Gary sorry based shit should always have been known as narrative games.
Why is "normal person" a JRPG fag?
the average normie thinks all rpgs are like final fantasy or persona
>normie
you're one of them and need to fuck off asap
all these people sound retarded
give me a balance of the three concepts, i don't care if it's worse than the sum of it's parts, i want to have some options
>She
And I like shit like Makai Kingdom, but also alternate paths
This image is wrong. RP isn't about variety. You can just as easily RP a hero and enjoy it. Only drama cunts want to play a constant slew of gimmick characters.
It's confusing RP for sandboxes and choose your own adventures, both of which have their own fans - some of which also overlap with imsims which youtubers have confused for sandboxes.
Top isn't an RPG, its a casual Turn-Based Strategy game.
Middle is an RPG.
Bottom is probably an action game, but it depends on the combat type.
I want cute waifus to romance and a friendship simulator
Check visual novels. Seriously, they fit that niche.
Exploration. One of the things I've loved so much about Octopath 2 is that it's entirely open world so I can run around and just find stuff at my own pace.
Finding stuff will never get old, it's pure fun. Second is character building, mixing and matching stuff to make my own build is a classic as well.
>turning stones for rubber band collectibles and pointless build autism
The cancer killing video games in a single post. Tasteless through and through.
>nooooo stop having fun play pretend like a little girl like me instead reeeeee
To each their own, anon. I just find myself getting immersed in worlds and wanting to see every edge of it and what secrets there are. It's all about the journey for me, not the destination.
The last is the most fun. I hate Sword Art Online but I'm addicted to the games for that sole reason.
>1st
>"i'm playing the role of the character!"
shit, might as well call any game an RPG if you think like that. halo is an rpg, im playing the role of master chief
>2nd
this is the big one, player agency is important and i like it when the game has avenues for you to interact with it in more ways than "pick which flavor of weapon you want to use to make the boss' HP go down"
>3rd
i like this in a smaller dose, i HATE number crunchy spreadshit shit that mmofags love but i enjoy synergies and unconventional choices coming together to make a play-style. but these do not define or make and RPG. normie games have also started stuffing this shit into their games to make them "rpgs", stupid shit like picrel. no, adding numbers and gear to god of war doesnt make god of war an rpg. uploading your gear to an online calculator to figure out if this new purple drop is a 0.20% dps upgrade does not make a game an RPG
>might as well call any game an rpg
Yeah, so long as the game is sufficiently immersive they are effectively RPGs. You're right. Playing a role is playing a role. If the game attempts and succeeds to force the player to play the role rather than interacting with abstracts then it succeeds.
>this is the big one
Hardly at all. At most it's a big one for TTRPGs and even then they have prebuilt campaigns with superficial choose your own adventure shit. The player choice is superficial. Please revise your assumptions
>I hate crunch
You hate games. You'd be better off in a drama troupe or LARPing then.
name 5 games
What kind?
>he cant name 5 games
>local man discovers that video games are not developed in real-time inside your computer based on your responses and are actually created ahead of time and therefore need planned choices and recorded dialogue.
that's exactly what makes it a game and not a LARP. its a box with rules and constraints and the RPG should provide tools to manipulate your conduct within and the way you interface with aspects of it.
dont bother replying to me, i wont read it
I accept your concession.
>Play the second one
>Want to enjoy this one, but personally feel like games today have a really hard time pulling it off to a meaningful degree. I guess that players don't want games where if they pick Class A, it locks them out of some options that would only make sense for Class B to do so we just settle on shitty item stats like
>Play the third one
>Get tired of the turbo autism crunchy numbers at some point, or hit a zenith where you become so OP that you know there won't be any more challenges and lose interest
Is there a term for this type of retardation?
It's not retardation, it's you being confused on what the game was offering and developers always trying to meld things together rather than refining one thing.
>when the game has avenues for you to interact with it in more ways than "pick which flavor of weapon you want to use to make the boss' HP go down"
The latter is exactly what 2 is. What you want is a game like 1, with multiple different scenarios.
Top is jRPG, middle is cRPG, bottom is dungeon crawlers/tRPG
Thematically I want the second row. Mechanically I want the third. The first row is just reading a book with extra steps.
3 for normal games
1 for porn rpgmaker games where the mc is a slut or a ntr'd guy because i like to see the story of a fictional character eating shit but i'd never eat shit irl
i genuinely can't understand 2, stuff like self-inserting and role playing is incredibly weird and cringe, you never mix fiction with reality
Coherent story and lore
Party members with great background stories and usefulness
Lots of mechanics to tinker with
Secrets
Great OST
Impactful sidequests
Great atmosphere and locales
originality
I'm not a fag so the last one. Stats>all.
Based. Most stories and characters are hot garbage anyway. I can see how some people can roleplay but I'm in it to game.
holy shit this game is friggen epic guys you need to check it out
Why are you so mad people don't play game like you?
games like #1 are the best and often include pieces of #2
see: VTMB, fallout
Crafting and romances.
Player agency. When I make decisions it’s amazing to see it reflected in the game.
For example, playing as a drow in Baldur s gate 3, an evil race. When you come up on the goblin fortress as a “good race” playable character they attack, when you come up as a drow they fall on their knees and worship you, as goblins should in the face of superior evil drow. You can then wander around the camp and talk to them.
You have chances of all that happening as the “good races” too, but it’s a lot harder.
Or how about in dragon age origins, when you find out your first and eternal companion Alistair is an heir to the throne. You have to decide what to do then: you can marry him to the queen, or have him executed. If you choose the latter you get a horrible scene of him in disbelief, that you would discard him so brutally. The next scene you get a message saying he was executed for treason and you get all his belongings. Holy shit.
Games that utilize RPG elements into their game do not make them RPGs. What constitutes as an RPG is player freedom which brings the abstractions that go along with it (the stats/the skills/the number crunch /etc). They are almost sim-lites as Gygax envisioned it. The reason why combat has such a heavy focus in RPGs was because it has a direct ancestral line to wargaming. So if people want to get into RPGs purely because of combat and what not, they should look more into tactics games which is what Japan did with SRPGS.
>The reason why combat has such a heavy focus in RPGs was because it has a direct ancestral line to wargaming
this line of reasoning falls apart when you realize TSR era D&D heavily disincentives combat , the focus on combat is a wizards thing established decades after its creation. try playing the game sometime buddy its fun.
That line of reasoning for D&D also remains solid because Chainmail exists and Gygax literally comes from wargaming first and foremost. Denying that wargaming isn't its direct ancestor is not only misguided, it's downright revisionism.
>Denying that wargaming isn't its direct ancestor is not only misguided, it's downright revisionism.
no one is denying that, but the claim that combat is a major focus of early D&D is wrong. dont talk to me about OD&D and chainmail if you havent even played them.
I have and I didn't say fucking D&D in my post I said RPGs in general hence the sentence break after I mentioned Gygax which I did mention is more sim-lites than straight up combat. Read and understand my fucking post next time before accusing me of not playing shit.
>anons picking more than one choice in OP's pic
ALL RPGs have those elements dumbass, you're supposed to pick one (see: 1) as its main point
>a good story and characters? pfft who cares
no panel 2 person says shit like this though
It's not who cares, YOU'RE CHOOSING THE MAIN POINT. MAIN DOESN'T MEAN ONLY.
1 without 3 is a visual novel
2 without 3 is a CY0A
3 without 1 and 2 still is a rpg
RPG in the loosest sense possible, they are more akin to tactics games if anything. You are misunderstanding OP because you think it's with or without when it is talking about MAIN point. All those elements OP's pic points out are the pillars for RPGs. And no 2 without 3 is not a CYOA, it's just a non-combat build.
Bottom player should really be playing roguelikes instead of RPGs tbh.
I don't like roguelikes. Or at least I haven't found roguelikes I like. Something about losing all my shit annoys me.
Because there's always this implicit knowledge that you'll lose, but not because of skill, but because it's only your X run, at some point you'll win, just keep restarting. Bonus points if the game doesn't give you fun and varied upgrades but instead Skill 1 +1% Damage
I've tried roguelikes before and even beat Hades but didn't care for it.
Or loot-based games because statwank is the main drive of that sort of thing.
Rogouelikes can be rpgs
ironic because roguelikes are the only vidya RPGs that come close to emulating the real thing.
Only the middle is a real rpg, but i like all 3, preferably combining all 3
>good writing and characters
>tremendous player agency
>loads of build autism and number fuckery
Minute-to-Minute gameplay > Gameplay high notes > Secondary gameplay features > Everything else
There is no amount of mediocre fantasy storytelling that can save a game with dogshit normal gameplay.
All three of those are perfectly valid. The third one can also be combined with either 1 or 2 without any conflict. Notice how shitty RPGs fail at all of these.
There can be conflict if it gets in the way of both and that by not number crunching to a tee you would be gimping your playthrough and make it a mud to go through. Underrail is a top example of this. Sure it has elements of 1 and 2 but at its core it's a 3 and if you don't want to min max and prepared to restart your playthrough because the build you fantasized is not optimal you are essentially softlocked.
You don't need to minmax in Underrail at all. Sure, if you pick completely random shit like feats for chem pistols and then run around with a hammer then yeah, it won't work, but as long as you pick something that at least superficially seems sensible then you can beat the game with it.
Can you give an example of builds that someone fantasized which will become unplayable unless you pick very specific feats?
Not them and not underrail but there is a famous example in Fallout 1 whee a player at max level couldn't beat the game because he was maining merchant and doctor skills
im a mix of roleplayer and gamer
>RPGs are about CYOA stories and dialogue prompts
New Vegas did irreparable damage to this genre.
Holy zoomzoom.
New Vegas isn't even the quintessential RPG to do this in recent time. It's pic related, it combines all three elements to its almost highest degree. Story? Depends on how you proceed with your character. Player Choice? This element sits at the top of the hierarchy and will determine your entire playthrough and what kind of story and combat you will be playing. Stat choice? For combat playthroughs it's mostly about preparedness than better loot that gets you surviving combat by the skin of your teeth.
Non-combat build, even then you'd still be using grenades and traps.
Why the fuck would you make a non-combat build in Underrail? That's not a criticism of min-maxing, it's simply playing the game wrong.
Because before the player can get into the game, you are greeted with non-combat stats that you can tag.
And you encounter enemies within the first 15 minutes of playing the game.
Which you can most likely beat. Depot A is the first YOU FUCKED UP build test.
Depot A is a test in several ways. A good build will make it easier, sure, but there's plenty of other ways to make it through, be it stealth, crafting, lockpicking, traps, hell even mercantile can help so you can buy more molotovs.
Depot A will softlock you, anon. That is already indisputable. The gap between easy and doable IS LARGE. It's been a while since I played Underrail but that's just how it was implemented and designed.
>if you ignore 15 out of 23 skills then the game will "softlock" you!
Good.
>well the game gives me the option to NOT shoot my gun, how was I supposed to know?
By restarting and making a more combat focused build since all non-combat stats in Underrail serve only one purpose: to strengthen a comat build. God forbid you just net build like a fag.
FFV is the best rpg ive ever played, the only way it could be improved is if they added more anime girls with little to no clothing
Reminder to laugh at all self insert fags.
I like 3 the most, but ONLY if the character building happens during gameplay and not at the begining of a game. Games that dump you into a huge ass character creation menu nightmare were you have to already now how the game plays before you can make any good decisions suck eggs. Make me start off as a pathetic weak default andy, point me to a dungeon and we can go from there.
would the first description be an "adventure" game
The thing about first example isn't a genre in of itself since story is a core element in gameplay progression and is found in nearly all types of video games. Hell, it's the reason why people like "movie" games because they are just in it for the ride and what happens next.
>Option 3
More games like this besides the obvious stuff like Etrian Odyssey, Diablo, etc
Borderlands.
Monster catching games like Pokemon and dragon quest monsters fit that pretty well
disgaea
Path of Autism
It feels like what this comic really shows off is that the genre "RPG" makes little to no sense and has no real meaning.
Normal Person is narrative driven games. Motherlikes and JRPGs. Character focused games with relatively simple gameplay aspects. Player choice are typically very limited but can have significant impacts on events. Earthboud, Undertale, Omori, Yume Niki, Lisa: The Painful, etc. Which is funny because outside of Undertale or something like Final Fantasy 7 I would typically view those as being way more niche compared to the the kind of stuff "The Gamer" likes.
Role Player is CRPGs. Games with loads of text stat gates, dice role combat, lots of little alterations and changes that address numerous small choices the player has made. Fallout 1/2, Pillars of Eternity, Pathfinder, Arcanum. Older individuals or those who have been playing videogames for a long time will be familiar with this kind of stuff.
Gamer is more so action/strategy games that have RPG aspects. Kill big monsters to get better gear to get better stats to kill bigger monsters. Player input to the story is unimportant and can be ignored to focus on gameplay unless the person takes an interest. However they're still stressing the importance of "Four Characters" so that makes things a bit more confusing. I guess stuff like Darkest Dungeon or X Com? But ignoring the "four player" thing then games like Elden Ring and I guess Monster Hunter.
Gamer is blobbers
Oh. I guess that makes sense. Though I can't think of any modern blobbers and when people talk about old titles like Might and Magic most of their advice centers around skipping as much content as possible or doing whatever it takes to trivialize combat.
Is the joke that "Gamers" actually hate their videogame?
It's not that it has no real meaning, it's just that virtually all of video games have ancestral roots to RPGs (tabletop) and nearly all of them are off shoots and refinements of its elements.
I prefer 1 and 3, 2 tends to be boring to me.
An unique protagonist. I want to play as a bum ass bro. I want to play as a dog bro. I want to play as a rapist bro.
I like Disco Elysium and the Rance series. Coincidentally they also have very unique worldbuilding
Self inserters really have fucked up the RPG landscape. The Protaganist HAS to be someone 'relatable' somehow.
>Self inserters really have fucked up the RPG landscape
You don't like chargen?
Women doesn't play games
In CRPGs, stats MUST be hidden from the player
I've never met or heard of anyone in the videogame industry who realizes this. The reason why stats are so prominent in real-life RPGs is because SOMEONE has to make the necessary calculations, and without the help of a computer the players are forced to do this boring work themselves.
When computers enter the scene, there is absolutely NO REASON why the player should have to see any numbers on the screen. Indeed, in my days as gamemaster back in high school I used to roll all the dice behind a screen: my players would simply tell me the action they wanted their characters to perform and I would respond with the result, without them ever having to calculate anything.
This is how CRPGs should work. The reason why they never work like that is purely historical. As mentioned earlier in this essay, CRPG designers initially focused on the stats because it was the easiest part of real RPGs they felt they could simulate. Thus CRPGs started out as strategy games and never really moved on from there, creating, in the process, generations of players with an unhealthy numbers fetishism who miss the point of role-playing entirely.
The end result is that decades-old adventure games such as The Secret of Monkey Island have more role-playing elements in them than most anything that gets passed off as a CRPG these days. (Some BioWare titles such as Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect do contain elements of role-playing, but the strategy and action components are so completely dominant, that the games end up feeling almost nothing like RPGs.)
Did you even look at OP's picture?
I don't know what you are talking about, in traditional tabletop rpgs players can see their stats too
that's literally what he said. try reading it again
Why aren't you playing table top, Ganker?
My group fell apart due to external bullshit.
I used to play with my coworkers, but our DM was lackluster so two of the guys who got introduce to table top are now very averse to ever playing again because they didn't have much fun. My one coworker is currently working on trying to convince them to play again.
>friend group collapsed
>never leave the house except for work
>no car
>awkward
I train strength and endurance and every group of people I've met who would be interested in D&D absolutely disgust and embarrass me.
>wanna play any tabletop that isn't DnD
>would have to somehow find and ingratiate myself with a group of DnD players and then somehow convince them to play this other rpg with me
>otherwise would have to try and convince a group of friends that doesn't play table top to coordinate a regular play session, send them the stuff to setup, have them read all the background info, learn the game mechanics, and fill out character sheets
>someone has to be a designated DM to keep track of everything like stats, mechanics, and story progress
>DM has to be able to come up with actually interesting story that fits the setting while still making enjoyable combat encounters and situations
>even if all this happened it might not be fun
seems like way to much effort tbh, would rather play videogames
Have you tried WoD? Vampire is pretty popular.
I've played VATMB but I'm not that interested in the setting, but I guess if some one I knew offered to host I would give it a shot
>no, I don't really wanna play dnd because I don't like the setting
>yes
pic related the setting looks really cool and I've read through a bunch of the materials but it looks like a lot to start off with. I might have to check out that website
No I understand that but one player not putting in much effort doesn't hurt as badly as a dm that can't make a story for shit
>a dm that can't make a story for shit
the dm shouldn't be making a story at all, divining a story through the games procedure i literally what RPGs are.
1.) Have you played D&D before?
2.) Do you have a system in mind?
You can get a group together a group and most groups, assuming they've played some D&D, are open to trying some new systems. The thing is, you'd want to be willing to run the new system yourself. If you want a system, Fate (generic) and Masks (superhero) are pretty neat.
If you just want to get into a game, there are online options. Roll20.net comes to mind, although a lot of those are paid DM games (really). But there are non-paid games taking players, and other places you can find people. Just join or sign up to one of them that's not running a D&D campaign.
Sure I do. It's only been... wow, 2 months. Thanks for the completed chart.
>middle girl looks like Bae from Pokemon
People like you need to understand that the GM is only part of the whole tabletop experience, you can't have the players not putting their effort as well and leave it to the GM to sort your shit out every single time. He is not there to entertain you, he is there to coordinate WITH you.
There are paid GM so he might as well be, I wonder if AIs can replace GM one day
Sure why not, idk how you would be able to coordinate players with AI and homebrew with them however since the GM needs to know what ideas to reject or accept when worldbuilding.
You would have a "head player" in that case. Basically GM in all but name, or perhaps even truer to the definition of "game master" as opposed to the more traditional role that is sometimes rebranded as "storyteller".
You never really have an interaction between a group of people without one of them taking the lead. Sometimes who that is might switch off, but that's very rare.
>send them the stuff to setup, have them read all the background info, learn the game mechanics, and fill out character sheets
if the players have to know the games mechanics (mechanics not rules) it isn't very well designed.
I'm sure this was a common complaint about THAC0 and a lot of people played D&D. I don't think you can completely avoid complexity in rpgs without it just being boring
players didnt need to know the system at all when THAC0 existed, plus the character sheets had a chart that showed what AC you hit with what die roll,
My DM is on hiatus because he's training to be a military recruiter. He doesn't wanna get deployed overseas when shit goes down with China and his current job as a medic(well technically he runs a clinic on base now) is exactly the kind of job that'd be sent overseas.
Real unfortunate too because we ended on a cliffhanger three weeks ago.
i run a bi weekly game and play in 3 others.
I could understand this for certain aspects of some CRPGs. I don't think I need to see every roll of the dice the computer makes, it could just say if I succeeded or failed. However you have a giant X painted over character creation stats. The player obviously has to see that don't they? They need to understand what exactly it is they're creating when they choose to make a character that sacrifices dexterity for strength or whatever. The failure to do so was a massive failure for many early CRPGs where'd you'd build something that would look sensible at first glance, but after 10 minutes in the game you would realize you were handicapping yourself.
Like how in Fallout 1, not maxing out Agility is essentially hamstringing your character regardless of their combat role.
What? Players make judgements because they are informed due to their stats, anon. Come the fuck on, you're telling me you asked your players to never look at their sheets? The reason why you roll behind the screen as a GM is to giving the future knowledge on what is going to happen which computers already do. Since TTRPGs are quintessentially American-style games (variance based), the player needs something to base their knowledge on even if it isn't guaranteed or not. I can see where you're coming from but the solution to that is to trim the number fat rather than outright remove it altogether
Anon, of course I'm playing Colony Ship. I'm simply waiting for it to come out of EA which they should this year. Them caving in by adding an Easy difficulty really soured me however since technically for Iron Tower games, the build determines somewhat the difficulty. (For Colony Ship, Stealth+CHA is meant to be the ez mode)
What does the Easy mode even do? Either way, I don't really care. A sci-fi cRPG is one of my dream games and from the EA alone, I feel like this is going to be a big step up from Age of Decadence which was already really good but also incredibly rough around the edges. It's the first RPG I'm actually excited for since Disco Elysium.
Easy or Hero mode, gimps enemy stats and decision making, practically invalidating most of your planning for combat and preparedness somewhat as you would in AoD or DR.
I wanna do a gurps campaign but id have to dm and im and awful storyteller
Ask /tg/. Even though GURPS gets memed around and often is autismo central, it still has a dedicated general for it.
Ask them for what?
Any questions you may have.
Player agency and a world that feels like it meaningfully reacts to you and your place in it. I hate how many so called RPGs now let you do and join everything even when it contradicts your character. By letting you be everyone you end up being no one.
That's why I liked Pathfinder WotR, there were so many things that actually changed depending on your mythic path and what kind of things you did. It's a shame that the late game paths are so lacklustre, but the others before that are really well made.
If you like then you'd probably like Age of Decadence and the developer's latest game Colony Game (still in EA). They're both pretty hardcore, but they're both very reactive to the player's choices which I really like.
There's also the issue of developers not wanting to waste time on content that most players will never see. It's also a lot harder to design a game in a way such that any build is a viable way to beat the game. If someone wants to play as a thief who avoids combat and smooth talks his way through encounters then you need to make sure that there is a viable path for that character to be able to at least beat the main quest. I'm still constantly impressed by how flexible the first two Fallout games are in this regard. I've done some builds that you think wouldn't be able to come up with a solution to a certain quest only to be proven wrong with some clever thinking. The term RPG has also become rather meaningless nowadays and it seems that any game that has stats and numbers of some sort is called an RPG.
Already played AoD and it's genuinely clunky and ugly as sin. Still enjoyed the writing and the ideas behind it though, played through it three times.
That's usually an old philosophy of RPGs to make up for the fact that there is only one player and to make sure they can enjoy the content the game provides. Bethesda still carries that torch. Nowadays, I believe are used to or even asking to put more and more limits for RPGs to highlight and hopefully refine its experience. It's almost oxymoronic, that by limiting design, you express the freedom of design better.
>first panel
tha'ts not normal people, that's japs. that is their literal definition of rpg, and that's why we segregate them. because they're wrong. a role playing game is NOT a stage play with a script to follow.
>second panel
that IS what an rpg is. roleplaying. framing the first panel as "normal" indicates a failure to understand this. every single word of this panel is absolutely correct, and games that don't follow it, don't deserve to be called rpgs.
>third panel
action "rpg"s are not. there is no roleplaying. therefore, there is nor rpg.
No one said the third option couldn't be turn based
Just give me a JRPG with the freedom of a CRPG and I can die a happy man.
No, I will not replay Elona.
The fun of an RPG is building your character/party the way you want
RPGs will never be fun. They always play in one of 2 ways
>1. ignore most elements in the game since bosses are immune to everything except for damaging moves, and maybe slow. can't specialize in anything because party has to be generalist to make it through the entire game
>2. new boss. waste turns to figure out attack properties, weaknesses, and patterns. restart and reload save. change gear and respec for fight. wipe the floor with boss
That is not a flaw of the genre, that is a mob design flaw.
you should play divinity original sin, both games do a great job of allowing for different builds to play how you want and using items to make up the difference in fights where your not built for it. People complain about the armor system in 2 but you can still use a mix group or all one type group and beat the game just fine.
>gameplay is not too slow, repetitive or grindy
>minimum two(2) characters I find cute (are playable or in the game alot, plz don't kill them off!)
>more customization the better (weapons, gear, class, race etc.)
>numbers go up, and it feels like it
>the story at least has one unique element
>option 1
literally not an rpg, this like saying pong is an rpg because you play the role of a paddle.
>great story and great characters make an rpg
not having choice means less player involvement in the story. ironically jrpgs almost always have terrible story, case in point ff7 one of the most beloved jrpgs of all time has a dogshit disconnected nonsense story
>option 2
literally correct, player agency and involvement is key,the basis of all videogame rpgs are tabletop
>option 3
still correct but not as important. player expression through skills, combat or otherwise is still a major part of roleplaying but without story involvemnt it's at best an action rpg or jrpg
I hate games that make your character a fucking mime without any personality so it can fit any situation. Your 'choices' (if you can call them that) are predetermined by devs, and 99% of the time, all 'branches' end up converging 1 or 2 scenes later. Worst of all, those games usually have characters that will act as MC's stand-ins in the plot.
Fuck self-insert fags btw.
>Fuck self-insert fags btw.
From what I understand, you want the MC to be more pre-built?
Wish granted
A game ahead of its time.
change the combat system and the game can be okay, the low poly aesthetics are better than indie pixel game one hundredth
I like games with pre-established characters that participate in the plot (e.g. Legend of Dragoon), not a half-assed attempt at customization with CaCs that negates any plot involvement your character might have because devs had to make everything generic to account for every single possible scenario.
There are ways to reduce the genericity of paths for a chargen character and a smart designer does it with builds
What's the Gankererdict?
Good game but don't go into it thinking it's an RPG, it's more akin to a solo tactics game.
>prepatch
a good tactics rpg if your running traps or magic, still has the worst end game are of almost any video game
>post patch
dull tactics game, pick guns or unga bunga heavy armor melee or don't bother playing
Wait, I recognize that style.
I'm pretty much done with Normal Person mode. I just don't have the time for that anymore, and I don't expect the story to be that good or interesting. I have TTRPGs for the Role Player, and games rarely let me do that well. Hell, other genres generally feel more roleplay-centric, meaning I can roleplay better in a point-and-click adventure game than I can in a RPG.
The stats can sometimes be interesting, at least if things are involved enough. I typically interact with RPGs as the Gamer, because even if the technical mechanics of the game are boring, the ways in which you can personalize or build can still be interesting.
I'm surprised you remember that, nice, here is the version with all the girls I don't think I posted it
I guess I'm in the yellow, especially considering that the pink games are all very weak choices for me and the green ones are all things that I aim for more red-leaning versions of and/or tend to complain that they aren't red enough.
Are games like pokemon really called monster rpgs or is it something different?
I like all 3.
Role player and Gamer are both equally enjoyable but video games will never be able to deliver on the literal roleplaying experience meaningfully.
The third option is absolute shit. I rotate betwen the first and second
RPG
Mattering
Pick one.
player choice and acknowledging player choice
Roleplayer Cute feet btw