this. You have stats and gear that meaningfully affect gameplay, different builds, etc. But that's about it. It's an Action RPG, with not very deep RPG mechanics, but enough that it's not like AssCreed or Zelda where you don't actually develop a character in ways that meaningfully affect gameplay long term. Making a build takes a lot more commitment than changing your gear, unlike AC and Zelda.
Another problem from Bloodborne gameplay is that its one dimensional and it plays the same way, what changes are the weapons and the player skill to dodge attacks and learn patterns.
Actual mechanics though are non existent, you are presented with a problem and the solution is always the same thing, kill kill kill.
Even in ways you can kill its limiting, you dodge you press attack then you dodge back and repeat, its not like you can use the environment to kill, or lure enemies to fight each other, or talk them to kill themselves, or pretend to be an ally and take over the city.
The kind of problem - solution is extremely one dimensional, which is a major flaw in RPGs.
Even build variety is bad compared to Souls, less builds, less weapons, no magic, no buffs/debuffs, no cc.
Its just a few lame hunter tools, half of which are useless crap.
Bloodborne had good enemy design, had good atmosphere, interesting lore bits even if a bit messy and unclear, and it had good art direction, but everything else is mediocre or downright bad.
even level design one of fromsoft specialty is significantly worse here as it takes a huge dip after the forbidden woods and goes from multilayered complex level to linear hallways.
I agree with most of what you said. Bloodborne is probably one of the weaker FromSoft games in terms of RPG elements. It leans even further into Action territory than Dark Souls, or Elden Ring, but maybe not quite as far as Sekiro, which is pretty much a straight up action game.
Im the one asking questions bere. I did not claim anything, Im just asking you to explain your thesis.
If your second question is part of It, then answer It as well.
>final fantasy >dragon quest >genre-defining staples
ah yes, japanese games that take out all of the role-playing out of the role-playing game are such genre-defining staples
but to answer your question >character level >experience points (that also act as currency) >attributes/stats that modify your effectiveness in combat >can create and customize your own character >can make different choices that affect the world around you
it's not a great RPG but it's definitely not a mere hack'n'slash like Devil May Cry or God of War
you dont really "build" characters in souls games the same way you do in traditional RPGs. the expression of your abilities is pressing R1 and rolling. if you think the depth of literally just "stats" is greater than the aspects of abilities and their usage, alignment, narrative direction, party composition yknow actual RPG shit then i think you just dont like RPGs man
>alignment, narrative direction, party composition
Alignment is useless relic from last century and if you directly control more than a single character, it's no an RPG.
why are you being a moron on an RPG board and claiming that a party system- a core feature of RPGs means a game isnt an RPG.
i feel like this place wouldnt be as much of a waste of time it is and would be somewhat enjoyable if the percentage of fricking idiots was lower
3 months ago
Anonymous
Party system is core feature of tabletop RPGs, where each character is controlled by one player and they (in theory at least) cooperate to reach some common goal.
Vidya RPGs emulate this, you play a character. You can get some tag-along companions, but you should never control them directly (emphasis on directly), because at that point you're out of the role of a character, and become some disembodied omniscient entity that manipulates fates of men. Eg. Fallout 1 and 2 are doing companions right, without falling out of the character role.
3 months ago
Anonymous
didnt ask. dont care what you think should happen, the fact is you do control party members in RPGs
3 months ago
Anonymous
Well yeah, no shit, computer games will never be able to emulate tabletop 1:1, they're limited not just by the fact that a computer can never be as hands on with player agency as a real DM but by the fact that most cRPGs are single player experiences.
Party systems in games are really no different from when you played AD&D with just one or two friends and had each player control more than one character, hirelings, henchmen to make dungeons more manageable. IIRC both OD&D and AD&D, and a few of the original starting modules tell the DM directly within the rules that you should allow players to control multiple unique characters if you don't have enough people at the table to round out a 6-8 person party.
Party systems in video games are a compromise, but it's not a compromise that video games invented, it already existed within the tabletop rules.
3 months ago
Anonymous
It is clear now, critical role is your only reference of tabletop roleplaying and to you role-playing means dialogue options and sex with your companions.
Though It all really does come down to player skills, stats and building do have and evident impact on your gameplay on souls games, and there is plenty of variation in games like Elden Ring.
Yes, Bloodborne has a smaller array of options when It comes to combat style, but It still has some variation and covenants add a certain layer of roleplay into the game.
I dont think souls games deviate from the logic behind RPGs, they just go really deep in certain parts of It while remaining at a surface level on others. Old Wizardry like games didnt boast complex roleplaying as well, but they were certainly RPGs.
Heck, ODnD play was much closer to skirmish wargames at first and still fathered the name RPG.
>you dont really "build" characters in souls games the same way you do in traditional RPGs. the expression of your abilities is pressing R1 and rolling.
How's that any different then a game like Dragon quest? In souls I hit a button on the D pad to select a spell, then hit r1 to cast it. In FF I select magic with the D pad, then press X to cast it. The only difference is 1 is turn based and the other isn't.
RPG game design has been taken over by imposters who have never played tabletop in any real capacity for a long long time now. Instead of being an adaptation of tabletops, focusing on the things games can do well and tabletops can't (and vice versa in the tabletop game design space) everything is just designed around the assumption that video games are the only form of RPG that exists. Both mediums suffer as a result.
It has stat leveling.
It is a RPG, but its a shallow one.
this. You have stats and gear that meaningfully affect gameplay, different builds, etc. But that's about it. It's an Action RPG, with not very deep RPG mechanics, but enough that it's not like AssCreed or Zelda where you don't actually develop a character in ways that meaningfully affect gameplay long term. Making a build takes a lot more commitment than changing your gear, unlike AC and Zelda.
Another problem from Bloodborne gameplay is that its one dimensional and it plays the same way, what changes are the weapons and the player skill to dodge attacks and learn patterns.
Actual mechanics though are non existent, you are presented with a problem and the solution is always the same thing, kill kill kill.
Even in ways you can kill its limiting, you dodge you press attack then you dodge back and repeat, its not like you can use the environment to kill, or lure enemies to fight each other, or talk them to kill themselves, or pretend to be an ally and take over the city.
The kind of problem - solution is extremely one dimensional, which is a major flaw in RPGs.
Even build variety is bad compared to Souls, less builds, less weapons, no magic, no buffs/debuffs, no cc.
Its just a few lame hunter tools, half of which are useless crap.
Bloodborne had good enemy design, had good atmosphere, interesting lore bits even if a bit messy and unclear, and it had good art direction, but everything else is mediocre or downright bad.
even level design one of fromsoft specialty is significantly worse here as it takes a huge dip after the forbidden woods and goes from multilayered complex level to linear hallways.
I agree with most of what you said. Bloodborne is probably one of the weaker FromSoft games in terms of RPG elements. It leans even further into Action territory than Dark Souls, or Elden Ring, but maybe not quite as far as Sekiro, which is pretty much a straight up action game.
>game about being an assassin in a town full of literal madmen and monsters
>"Oh my fricking ONIONS I can't talk to people like in New Trans Vegas?!"
Explain your thesis. What does It lack that makes of it not an RPG?
which traits does it share with genre-defining staples such as Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest?
Im the one asking questions bere. I did not claim anything, Im just asking you to explain your thesis.
If your second question is part of It, then answer It as well.
>final fantasy
>dragon quest
>genre-defining staples
ah yes, japanese games that take out all of the role-playing out of the role-playing game are such genre-defining staples
but to answer your question
>character level
>experience points (that also act as currency)
>attributes/stats that modify your effectiveness in combat
>can create and customize your own character
>can make different choices that affect the world around you
it's not a great RPG but it's definitely not a mere hack'n'slash like Devil May Cry or God of War
>muh role-playing
literally nobody cares about your disruptive hallucinations grandpa go take your schizophrenia medicine
so baldur's gate just doesn't exist?
>so baldur's gate just doesn't exist?
It does, and I'm tired of pretending that it doesn't.
how did you infer that from my post?
>jrpg
gay
You can change your characters appearance
It is not an RPG nor is it a good game. Also, that trash runs at ~30 FPS.
It doesn't because it's an action game.
A game can't be an RPG if xp = money.
The sad truth is souls games have deeper character building than any turn based slop you consider "real" rpgs.
Aren't Pathfinder games basically peak build autism?
Does it count if turn based was added after the fact
Do we want to judge games for how they are now, or how they were at release, or with some sort of case-by-case double standard?
Preferably the latter.
you dont really "build" characters in souls games the same way you do in traditional RPGs. the expression of your abilities is pressing R1 and rolling. if you think the depth of literally just "stats" is greater than the aspects of abilities and their usage, alignment, narrative direction, party composition yknow actual RPG shit then i think you just dont like RPGs man
>alignment, narrative direction, party composition
Alignment is useless relic from last century and if you directly control more than a single character, it's no an RPG.
>if you directly control more than a single character
Have you played a single RPG in your life?
Sure. Have you?
why are you being a moron on an RPG board and claiming that a party system- a core feature of RPGs means a game isnt an RPG.
i feel like this place wouldnt be as much of a waste of time it is and would be somewhat enjoyable if the percentage of fricking idiots was lower
Party system is core feature of tabletop RPGs, where each character is controlled by one player and they (in theory at least) cooperate to reach some common goal.
Vidya RPGs emulate this, you play a character. You can get some tag-along companions, but you should never control them directly (emphasis on directly), because at that point you're out of the role of a character, and become some disembodied omniscient entity that manipulates fates of men. Eg. Fallout 1 and 2 are doing companions right, without falling out of the character role.
didnt ask. dont care what you think should happen, the fact is you do control party members in RPGs
Well yeah, no shit, computer games will never be able to emulate tabletop 1:1, they're limited not just by the fact that a computer can never be as hands on with player agency as a real DM but by the fact that most cRPGs are single player experiences.
Party systems in games are really no different from when you played AD&D with just one or two friends and had each player control more than one character, hirelings, henchmen to make dungeons more manageable. IIRC both OD&D and AD&D, and a few of the original starting modules tell the DM directly within the rules that you should allow players to control multiple unique characters if you don't have enough people at the table to round out a 6-8 person party.
Party systems in video games are a compromise, but it's not a compromise that video games invented, it already existed within the tabletop rules.
It is clear now, critical role is your only reference of tabletop roleplaying and to you role-playing means dialogue options and sex with your companions.
Though It all really does come down to player skills, stats and building do have and evident impact on your gameplay on souls games, and there is plenty of variation in games like Elden Ring.
Yes, Bloodborne has a smaller array of options when It comes to combat style, but It still has some variation and covenants add a certain layer of roleplay into the game.
I dont think souls games deviate from the logic behind RPGs, they just go really deep in certain parts of It while remaining at a surface level on others. Old Wizardry like games didnt boast complex roleplaying as well, but they were certainly RPGs.
Heck, ODnD play was much closer to skirmish wargames at first and still fathered the name RPG.
>you dont really "build" characters in souls games the same way you do in traditional RPGs. the expression of your abilities is pressing R1 and rolling.
How's that any different then a game like Dragon quest? In souls I hit a button on the D pad to select a spell, then hit r1 to cast it. In FF I select magic with the D pad, then press X to cast it. The only difference is 1 is turn based and the other isn't.
>This thread
Have you homosexuals never played as 2 character sheets in tabletops to make a huge ass party with few people?
RPG game design has been taken over by imposters who have never played tabletop in any real capacity for a long long time now. Instead of being an adaptation of tabletops, focusing on the things games can do well and tabletops can't (and vice versa in the tabletop game design space) everything is just designed around the assumption that video games are the only form of RPG that exists. Both mediums suffer as a result.
it's a midwit with schizophobia, anon, the idea of roleplaying multiple characters at the same time is beyond their capacity
Quite the contrary, schizo is the one that's fine with roleplaying multiple characters.
Pretty sure he's baiting you lol.