Codexian CRPG Book Released

[Deleted member 93956]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinm...nt-love-letter-to-computer-rpgs/#489ec1c2296f

:prestigious:

 

[Deleted member 116369]

It should've been called the "RPG Book" or "Grimoire Role Playing"

 

[felipepepe]

Oh FFS Risewild, if you want to get your points across you should at least write them in a way I don't feel like I'm spending a significant chunk of my life reading it. I can't believe I read all that...

I'm not gonna rebate that wall of text point by point, because the core of the issue that all your points are entirely based on what FOR YOU is an RPG. You say that "RPGs do not use player skill to do character's skill related things", but that's completely disconnected from reality.

Ultima Underworld, Arena & Daggerfall have combat that rely on you quickly moving your mouse across the screen to execute attacks. That's player skill, so now Ultima Underworld isn't an RPG? Dungeon Master isn't an RPG because your speed with the mouse influences you attack speed? Gothic and The Witcher aren't RPGs because you have to time your attacks in combat? Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG because of the player skill-based combat? Wizardry VII isn't an RPG because of the lockpicking mini-game?

Just compare a first-time Diablo II player and a veteran Diablo II player with the exact same build and see how your argument falls to the ground - knowing where to move, when to attack, when to heal, where to target, having the proper reflexes... is no different than Borderlands.

Finally, writing this:

I never said you're doing this for the money

After having said this:

Also I have the feeling that the author is gonna try to monetize this product (which makes me think that there was ulterior motives for the making of this. Money money money).

That's some bullshit.

 

[Risewild]

Oh FFS Risewild, if you want to get your points across you should at least write them in a way I don't feel like I'm spending a significant chunk of my life reading it. I can't believe I read all that...

Oh FFS, if you're not gonna debate my points then you shouldn't even be replying. At least put effort into it, it took me a long time to write that so I could pass my message across as clear as possible.

I'm not gonna rebate that wall of text point by point, because the core of the issue that all your points are entirely based on what FOR YOU is an RPG. You say that "RPGs do not use player skill to do character's skill related things", but that's completely disconnected from reality.

It is not FOR ME. Your quotes from Richard Garriott and Tim Cain say exactly what I say... You said you don't care what a random guy on the internet says and that you will listen to those influential people in the genre. But those people are saying exactly the same I said. Your quotes to prove to me I'm wrong actually keep saying what I say. RPGs rely on character stats/skills and not on role-playing. Role-playing can be achieved on other game genres.
Or are you gonna say that Richard Garriott clear point in what you quoted is just some random guy on the internet too?

This is my personal definition; most people don't adhere to this. Diablo, great game. Loved it. For me, I use the term "RPG" for it because it is a stats game. It's a "Do I have the best armor equipment compared to the creature I'm facing?" There's not really any story for it. It's a great challenge reward cycle game. Blizzard, by the way, does the best challenge reward cycle games I've seen.

On the other hand, Thief or Ultima are role-playing games versus RPG -- which I know stands for role-playing game. When I think of a role-playing game, it is now where you are charged with playing an actual role and qualitative aspects of how you play are every bit as important as what equipment you use. That's what I find most interesting. It's a lot easier to do stories there.

See? He clearly differentiates RPGs from games you can role-play. He doesn't say that games you can role-play are necessarily RPGs.
Like i said in my previous post, it's there, black on white.

Tim Cain explicitly said that for him Star Control 2 was a RPG because it had the equivalent to character skill (spaceship resources) and the entire game was closer of being a RPG than an Adventure game because not only did it have the equivalent to skill, items and Hit Points it also included other three elements that enrich the RPG for him, exploration, storyline and combat.

You control a ship that starts off as a bare-bones hull, and as you acquire resources and credits, you can buy upgrades to improve your ship, as well as gain new crew and landing craft to replace any that were lost in battles and exploration. These features are a direct analog to the skills, items and hit points in a typical role-playing game, making Star Control 2 closer to a CRPG than an adventure game.

And like any good CRPG, Star Control 2 offers three areas of activity for the player: exploration, storyline, and combat.

Which is once again what I have been saying, what makes a RPG is the elements in the "full package" of the game, not just elements. See how Tim Cain takes a look at what some consider a adventure game and sees the elements that work the same as in a RPG and then sees how the entire game uses those elements and then tells us that how those are handed, it makes the game as RPG for him. Which is what I keep saying over and over.

So no, it is not FOR ME, it is also for those two giants of the cRPG world.

Ultima Underworld, Arena & Daggerfall have combat that rely on you quickly moving your mouse across the screen to execute attacks. That's player skill, so now Ultima Underworld isn't an RPG? Dungeon Master isn't an RPG because your speed with the mouse influences you attack speed? Gothic and The Witcher aren't RPGs because you have to time your attacks in combat? Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG because of the player skill-based combat? Wizardry VII isn't an RPG because of the lockpicking mini-game?

I expected better points.

Tell me, can you beat Daggerfall, Arena and Ultima Underworld (or any other games you mentioned) with a level 1 character as well or better than a different player with a max level character but that clicks slower? What matters most on those games, that you can click 0.1 seconds faster than a different player or how you leveled up your character?
Try playing most of those games with a weapon where the character has no skill points in and then tell me how many hits you get on an enemy even clicking twice or three times as fast as a player with a good weapon skill. I bet the character with a better skill will hit more times in the same amount of time compared to the faster clicker.

About the lockpick in Wizardry.
You once again keep missing the point. You're focusing on one element and not on the whole game. Which I keep saying (over and over) it's the problem people keep making. A genre is not defined by the single elements. Does Wizardry 7 not rely mainly on character skills? Does one single instance of needing player skill for something that there is no character skill (lockpick) automatically makes it a not RPG?
No, because the remaining (pretty much the entirety of the game) still relies on the damn character and it's skills.
Just like if a drama movie has one joke in it, it doesn't stop being a drama and becomes a comedy. Because the rest is still entirely a drama.

Just compare a first-time Diablo II player and a veteran Diablo II player with the exact same build and see how your argument falls to the ground - knowing where to move, when to attack, when to heal, where to target, having the proper reflexes... is no different than Borderlands.

This is hilarious (not to offend, it really made me laugh). You're trying to debate that player skill is more important than character's skill in RPGs by using the example where both characters have the same build (so the same character skills). While my point is that the game relies more on character skill than player skill.

Grab an experienced Fallout 2 player, give it a character (level 1, no armor and a knife) and tell him to defeat a Golden Gecko 10x... Result will be... death of the character in the first 5 turns all of the times. Now give a newbie player a max level character, no armor and a knife, max melee weapon skill, melee boosting perks and more HP perks and tell him to defeat a Golden Gecko 10x. I bet he will defeat the Golden Gecko most (or all) of the times.

You mentioned Diablo 2. So lets say you give an experienced player a level 10 Barbarian character which invested ALL the skill points into Energy. Now tell me that player will be as successful playing as another player with the same character build except it invested ALL of the skill points into Vitality or mostly on Vitality and some on Dexterity/Strength.

See how it is more important the character skill than the player skill?

Finally, writing this:

I guess I should remember not everyone knows how I express myself around here, so I do apologize for that.
The "makes me think" is not "He's doing it for sure!". If you knew me, you would know I use a lot the "makes me think" or "it seems to me" as a "gives the impression" and not "I know it is like this!" other wise I would say "I am sure".
But I admit that is entirely my fault for not being clear. So once again I apologize for giving the wrong impression.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

This is hilarious (not to offend, it really made me laugh). You're trying to debate that player skill is more important than character's skill in RPGs by using the example where both characters have the same build (so the same character skills). While my point is that the game relies more on character skill than player skill.

Can you kill a level 72-OP8 Ultimate Super Badass Golem in Borderlands 2 with a level 1 gun and a level 1characters, even with other coop partners and you're an experienced player? (FYI it takes 20 minutes at best to take down for a maxed out character) See, the main hole in your stance is that you're overlooking and demeaning things to favour it.

Going on with that, an experienced fallout 2 player could exploit the AI range (or go do the Navarro run before it ) and carefully pick the starting chart and get a sizable chance, probably bigger than that babby newcomer who might not even know sequence, AP, controls, equipping and picking up items or how to heal.

Apparently, if the gameplay is any more than what can be carried through by a vegetative person or a literal vegetable, it's not an RPG? Because knowledge of the game's systems, average cause and consequence, the better strategies in combat and build and everything else needed to PLAY THE GAME, let alone clicking on "stuff", IS player skill. You can't throw stat investments, perks s d equipment around completely thoughtlessly to advance as well as you could in the large majority of games. Even in the casualest casual games you need it, a learning progression, as short as it may be, which will make you play different from when you or another who started besides maybe all those Clicker or Idle games. That's why player skill and character skill reliance is a spectrum and by no means the single defining trait of "RPG" period. It is related to the definition of Action RPG, but that there is a bigger proportion of player skill involved doesn't mean that there'll be none of character's, and it can be the respectively opposite case.

Just like if a drama movie has one joke in it, it doesn't stop being a drama and becomes a comedy. Because the rest is still entirely a drama.

Turn it back around and see how reversible that is in favour of "our" thesis.

 

[felipepepe]

This:

RPGs do not use player skill to do character's skill related things.

And this:

my point is that the game relies more on character skill than player skill.

Are not the same thing.

Is not that I don't know "how you express yourself", is that you're moving goalposts and have zero consistency.

As Arnust points above, stats matter in Borderlands - your level, your gun, your skill level with said gun, your available skills, etc. So Borderlands is an RPG by the exact argument you just wrote.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

They don't only matter but are part of the core gameplay and are key to experience and complete the game. "Mattering" sometimes can be shaky and subjective and it mostly is.

The bottomline, for me, is that the genre tag is a neutral qualification. The term being more or less "mistaken" or "misinterpreted" affects the genre and its pertaining titles very marginally compared to trends, development, publisher goals and demands and the state of the industry. The state of the tag isn't what "killed" RPGs to the advent of this century, nor what started the Renaissance, they were the other factors. This discussion is part semantics and part more of a genre definition discussion than of the RPG genre itself, really.

 

[Risewild]

Oh boy, another few posts to reply to people who just nitpick things out of context and only skim over my posts.
Yes, this will be another wall of text, so only read it if you have 2 hours to spare. I reccomend taking a 15 minutes rest for each hour you spend reading this.
(Hurrah! the Smilies window is working today, now I can make the posts how I like, with visual aids! )

Can you kill a level 72-OP8 Ultimate Super Badass Golem in Borderlands 2 with a level 1 gun and a level 1characters, even with other coop partners and you're an experienced player? (FYI it takes 20 minutes at best to take down for a maxed out character) See, the main hole in your stance is that you're overlooking and demeaning things to favour it.

Going on with that, an experienced fallout 2 player could exploit the AI range (or go do the Navarro run before it ) and carefully pick the starting chart and get a sizable chance, probably bigger than that babby newcomer who might not even know sequence, AP, controls, equipping and picking up items or how to heal.

Apparently, if the gameplay is any more than what can be carried through by a vegetative person or a literal vegetable, it's not an RPG? Because knowledge of the game's systems, average cause and consequence, the better strategies in combat and build and everything else needed to PLAY THE GAME, let alone clicking on "stuff", IS player skill. You can't throw stat investments, perks s d equipment around completely thoughtlessly to advance as well as you could in the large majority of games. Even in the casualest casual games you need it, a learning progression, as short as it may be, which will make you play different from when you or another who started besides maybe all those Clicker or Idle games. That's why player skill and character skill reliance is a spectrum and by no means the single defining trait of "RPG" period. It is related to the definition of Action RPG, but that there is a bigger proportion of player skill involved doesn't mean that there'll be none of character's, and it can be the respectively opposite case.


Turn it back around and see how reversible that is in favour of "our" thesis.

Can you beat Doom 1 last boss just using the fists weapon? Does that mean that Doom is a RPG and not a FPS?
Can you beat that same Borderlands 2 boss when you suck at FPS even with the "best" equipment/level,etc?

Once again you guys are focusing on each element and not the whole.

Even with a max character with the best weapons, if you as player can't avoid the enemy attacks while aiming and hit it with your attacks, then you won't be able to beat the boss either.
And if you're a really skilled player, you might not be able to drop the enemy but he will not be able to drop you either, because you can avoid being hit (unless the game gives him some unavoidable attack or something).

You use player skill in games like this, where even if you have the best equipment and abilities, you (the player) has to do all the dodging and aiming and shooting and all of that. If you're bad at it chances are you won't beat the boss in any way.

In RPGs, it is your character skill that will count. You tell the character what to do and the character does it himself. If you have a character that is a badass, max level, expert at using weapons, and master dodger/high AC (whatever other skills/values are used to avoid being hit), you the player do not have to aim and shoot and don't have to dodge because it's your character job to do it. If your character is well made for the task you want him to do, chances are it will succeed at it. If your character is badly made for the task you want to do, chances are he will never manage to do it.

Let's compare both. Shooters need equipment progression and player skill, chances are that even with all the best equipment, your character won't do much unless the player has the right skills to do it.
RPGs need character skills and equipment progress (I guess), chances are that with all the best equipment and max level the character will be able to overcome most or all obstacles in the game if he has the skill to overcome them.

See how there is no hole in my stance? Every shooter relies on equipment since the first one but also on player skill, having the best equipment means nothing if YOU can't hit the enemy and if you can't avoid the enemy fire YOURSELF, you won't progress. In a RPG you assign the target and your character uses his stats and skills to hit the target and usually uses his stats and skills to avoid being hit (usually because there are RPGs without dodge skills or AC). If YOU make your character bad for whatever situation, it will always be bad for that situation.

Usually (or always) people are bad at RPGs because they lack knowledge of the game, but usually (or always) people are bad at most other genres because they lack the skill.

A perfect example of this:
Anyone can read a guide or walkthrough for a cRPG (or most of them) and replicate the steps on that walkthrough, specially if it includes an "optimal" build for the characters. Anyone that does this will be able to beat the game just by copying what it says or shows there.

But this is not true for shooters for example. The walkthrough can have the "optimal" build, but if the player doesn't have the necessary reflexes and hand eye coordination, they will not beat the game.

You can twist my words all you want, but this doesn't change.

Also it is funny how you resort to mention exploits to prove me wrong. But I will mention this, many newcomers also exploit the same things in Fallout 2 because they can just read guides that tell them how to do it. That is not player skill, that is knowledge of the game. You can have skill without knowledge of the game and you can have knowledge without skill. They are two different things.

A couple of shameful examples:
I have played Super Mario Bros. on and off for years. I know the game pretty well, I watched videos of full playthroughs, I read articles about it, I play it from time to time on my emulator in my tablet when I have a few minutes to spare and I am out of the house, and played it in my NES when I was young too.
I KNOW Super Mario Bros. but I could never beat it, because I suck at platformers! There... I admitted it... hope you're all happy .
I have the knowledge by lack the skill.
Another real example:
I used to play G-Darius on the PSX. There was a boss there I could never beat. So I grabbed my trusty Xplorer (for those who don't know, it is like a suckier gameshark) and enabled a cheat that would give me a fully "upgraded" ship (it would permanently give the ship the most powerful upgrades to weapons and shield, and I can't remember properly but I think it also gave me little ships that would also shoot enemies around my main one). I still couldn't beat that damn boss. My brother could beat it even without the fully upgraded ship. I played that game a lot and always ended up in frustration. I have knowledge of the game, but I lack the skill to play it properly ...
Now I will go and sit in a corner and feel bad about how inapt I am at some game genres...

This:

RPGs do not use player skill to do character's skill related things.

And this:

my point is that the game relies more on character skill than player skill.

Are not the same thing.

Is not that I don't know "how you express yourself", is that you're moving goalposts and have zero consistency.

I see no inconsistency there. I clearly say that RPGs do not use player skill to do character's skill related things. I don't say RPGs relies only on character skills. It relies more (or mainly, if anyone prefers) on character skill, not only on character skill.
Because games always need input in some way. Otherwise it stops being a game and becomes a film or something. You need to be able to click on an enemy for many RPGs to designate that as a target, but no matter how good you're at it, your character will not be able to hit that target very well or at all unless it has enough skills/stats himself to do it.
How am I not being consistent?
I also don't see any moving goalposts, both statements don't contradict themselves at all.

So it is clear you still don't know "how I express myself".

As Arnust points above, stats matter in Borderlands - your level, your gun, your skill level with said gun, your available skills, etc. So Borderlands is an RPG by the exact argument you just wrote.

Just like Doom weapons and armor matter, is Doom also a RPG? Again I try to pass this into your thick skulls It's the "full package", the full game that makes a genre (just like Tim Cain mentioned before ). Tell me, how is it a RPG just because you need special attacks and better weapons to defeat hard bosses while you still use all the FPS skills needed to be able to also defeat those bosses? It looks like a FPS, it plays like a FPS and it has weapon/equipment progression like a FPS but it is a RPG . It is how the elements work in the game that define the genre, not the elements themselves. I already said this so many times in just a few posts, but you cover your ears and keep going "lalalalala" because if you actually listen, you can't really argue much about it.

For example, why are games like Football Manager in the Managerial Simulation genre? All the characters in the game have their own skills and stats. You are even playing the role of a manager. So it even allows the player to role-play a manager if they have the necessary creative skills.

But it is not a RPG and anyone that played RPGs (of any sub-genre) and then plays a Manager game will see the difference right away.
It has many RPG elements, but how those affect the game and how the game is "wrapped" around them makes it a totally new genre. This is what I mean by the "full package" I mention over and over and you guys keep ignoring and just talk back about elements. If those are not "wrapped" by a "RPG game", but are wrapped by a shooter game, then in the end it is still a shooter.

I mentioned Fallout New Vegas before and how it manages to be a hybrid of RPG and Shooter. Because both the RPG and Shooter elements have a game "wrapped" around them that can play as a shooter, a RPG or a balance of both.
You show someone that doesn't know what FNV is, a gameplay video of FNV where the player only uses VATS for combat, and only showing dialogue choices with skill/stat checks and actual world interactions with skills/stats checks and the viewer will right away say it is an action RPG (of course the game has more complex things that make it a RPG). Because what the viewer saw, was a game that (for the viewer) looks like an action RPG, plays like an action RPG and things work like they do in an action RPG. Which is how the game actually works, if you want to play it pure RPG style.
You show someone else that doesn't know what FNV is, a FNV gameplay video of the player only shooting things without ever using VATS, using the iron-sights and dialogue without any skill checks. And the viewer will right away say that game was a Shooter. Because it looks like a shooter, plays like a Shooter, and things work like they do in a Shooter. Which is how the game actually works, if you want to play a pure Shooter style.

Show someone a video of Borderlands 2 gameplay, with the dialogue and the combat and they will say right away it is a shooter. It plays like a Shooter, it looks like a Shooter and it does things like a Shooter does.
This is the exact same point Tim Cain made about Star Control 2 being a RPG, because it looks like a RPG, it plays like a RPG and things work like they do in a RPG. The "full package" of Star Control 2 is that of a RPG.

You guys never countered this point ("full package" vs elements). Which would be funny, (since like I keep bragging about) because it is the same point both Tim Cain and Richard Garriott made on the examples previously mentioned to counter me (yep, I will be using this for a long time from now on "Tim Cain and Richard Garriot have the same definition of RPG as me, a random guy on the internet." ).

I also noticed how I was contesting more STALKER being considered a RPG and even mentioned myself that Borderlands is closer to a RPG than STALKER because it uses more elements found in many RPGs, but you guys seemed to have conceded defeat about STALKER, because you cleverly "forgot" about it and just focus on Borderlands.

Disclaimer:
I put a lot of effort into this. It is very long (insert rude sexual joke here ) because I had to repeat myself and provide a lot of examples of what I mean (for many times now) because you guys still don't understand what I am trying to tell you (or just ignore what I am trying to tell you for whatever reason).
But it's ok. I will wait for your one or two points debating a specifically nitpicked thing I mentioned while ignoring all the other valid points that were never contested by both of you guys for reasons . It makes this exchange of ideas and words much less fun, but it is still fun in a way.

By the way, I am also mentioning this just in case. I am not typing this angrily, I am always calm when I debate stuff otherwise I will just handicap myself by letting emotions take over. If anything sounds rude, it is not with the intention of offending or being rude, I like to make some more "humoristic" remarks to try and keep things more fun for the reader (and that is also how I actually am in real life).
I do enjoy these debates, but it is a bit frustrating when I have to keep repeating myself in each post because you guys can't seem to understand what I mean.

 

[Gizmojunk]

You say that "RPGs do not use player skill to do character's skill related things", but that's completely disconnected from reality.

I disagree. The purpose of making an RPG character—as opposed to making a version of one's own self as the character, is to be bound to their personal strengths and weaknesses; their aptitudes and unfamiliarities—which ideally, are not the same as one's own. It is them acting in the situation—not the player. To use Fallout as an [rather excellent] example, the player only ever signals the character's intent to act; if they are roleplaying, then they choose the most in-character action for the given situation. When (or if) it is decided that the PC would take action (like to decipher, or to attack, or to steal, or to pick a lock, etc...), the player signals the intent, and PC then makes the attempt, and they wholly succeed or fail on their own merit and ability; easily failing if they are inept, perhaps easily succeeding if they are expert.

If the player were themselves a professional locksmith, their expertise in the matter should be of no aid to the novice character attempting to pick their first lock. This is contrary to Oblivion for instance—whose lockpicking mini-game can hamstring a professional thief PC if the player cannot master it, as well as allow the expert player to open a lock like a pro—with a clueless PC, who should never be able to open it. It is the same with the weapons in FO3. In Fallout 2, the PC aimed the gun—it was them. The player targeted who they should shoot, but they couldn't hit a barn if they were inept... In FO3, the player personally points the weapon; and could compensate for low PC skill. In the vault with the first shots of the BB gun birthday present, I was able to help the PC hit the target from across the room—when it was their first time ever holding the weapon; that's pathetic RPG behavior IMO. In Gothic 2, I had the PC try to pick the first lock encountered, and he mused to himself that he knew nothing of locks... and indeed, he had had no training for it yet. Why should he be able to pick the lock if I were able to beat some mini-game for it?

_____

Oblivion's (and Skyrim's) PC are a vestigial artifacts that would seem intended as mere placeholders for the player. The purpose of of their [post Morrowind] games is not roleplaying, it is ego fantasy; it is the player AS the adventurer, and not the adventurer acting as extrapolated by the player; IE. the player in-game with wizard skills, instead of the player extrapolating a character like Gandalf—if that was the character they were roleplaying.

I don't consider Oblivion an RPG; nor the Diablo series—a graphical rogue-like akin to the Gauntlet arcade game.

*The Witcher is a good point: I consider the Witcher (1) to be a superb RPG; the timed attacks are a nice incidental system (that I liked), but they are not required; they are not even possible with non-sword weapons (IRRC). From a mechanics standpoint, the system seems intended as a minor cost for a stronger attack, and one not always guaranteed to succeed. They could as easily have had it score combos at random; or X number of combos per X number of attacks.

The problem I have with the Witcher series... is the sequels. They gutted the combat system, and ditched the multiple camera system, and added nonsense like suddenly needing to kneel in the mud to drink potions; taking them before the battle could indicate what would best suit it. Geralt lost his pragmatism; and his sword expertise... now dependent upon the wild swings of the new player—who initially wins by fluke. How can one roleplay a sword master, if they are personally controlling the swords? (How can he act like a swords master; or use his years of experience... when the new Geralt swings at whatever he faces when they click the button—even if his opponents are behind him... That's out of character.)

__Part 1
*This doesn't even mention choice & consequence dialog, and the RPG twisting the narrative to react to the PC's interactions with the world and its local inhabitants.

**Some of the games you mention are Dungeoncrawlers... the paramount point of those games being the maps themselves; to explore the dungeon, defeat its traps, and discover its secrets. It doesn't even need a story or dialog—though having one or both is generally welcome; Dungeon Hack didn't have either (AFAIK).

The characters in these games are essentially optional player abilities (ones that improve with XP); bring a mage to cast fireballs, bring a thief to pick locks. I know of no dungeoncrawlers with conversation that has mentionable consequence; above the level of yes/no, join/leave, help/kill... or just exposition. Compare that with Planescape Torment.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

And you didn't answer how the result of the player experience is somehow not involving ANY player skill. Nevermind that in most titles combat might not even take all that much of the gameplay time in the first place, thus having that not be really "much full package", isn't it?

Can you beat Doom 1 last boss just using the fists weapon? Does that mean that Doom is a RPG and not a FPS?
Can you beat that same Borderlands 2 boss when you suck at FPS even with the "best" equipment/level,etc?

It's traditional action game design to have progressive escalation. However while in the case of DOOM and most other action games, it's tied to the usually near progression. You and your enemies are STATIC except when it comes to Doomguy's arsenal. DOOM utilises no chart whatsoever.

Most action games are incredibly doable when completely overpowered. Does that mean they are RPGs? As Felipe has said, you can't wrap everything under the same criteria especially if it means that it's exclusive and not inclusive.

You keep saying the full package thing arbitrarily when you're poking at things for a single facet of them.

Show someone a video of Borderlands 2 gameplay, with the dialogue and the combat and they will say right away it is a shooter. It plays like a Shooter, it looks like a Shooter and it does things like a Shooter does.

Oh hey, a looter shooter and a turn based strategy game! Yeah, no.

I also noticed how I was contesting more STALKER being considered a RPG and even mentioned myself that Borderlands is closer to a RPG than STALKER because it uses more elements found in many RPGs, but you guys seemed to have conceded defeat about STALKER, because you cleverly "forgot" about it and just focus on Borderlands.

While there’s no RPG-style XP/level up system, equipment and inventory management are vital. ere are several types of weapons, ammo and armor available, but their weight and durability must be carefully considered. Players also have to deal with hunger, bleeding, radiation and other types of hazards. e artifacts scattered across the Zone can be used to boost resistances, though usually with a drawback (e.g. reducing radiation but increasing bleeding).

Sadly, interaction with NPCs is usually limited to just accepting quests, trading or asking about rumors. However, STALKER does o er several di erent endings based on the player’s reputation with the Zone’s factions and NPCs, as well as how they chose to act in certain important story quests.

- The CRPG Book Project

It is also mentioned later that faction war and reputations would be reintroduced in the later games after being cut from it. You could read the thing, it's pretty interesting...

But this is not true for shooters for example. The walkthrough can have the "optimal" build, but if the player doesn't have the necessary reflexes and hand eye coordination, they will not beat the game.

Again. It's not an RPG if a paralytic can play it? I really want to see you describe how the learned doesn't become a skill, somehow, despite what you call "player skill" literally translates to "player input" in practice.

See, reading books is a skill. I kid not. Needless to say that it's not overly common for most people for it to be consumed in the hobby level, nor today nor ever, it IS a skill to be able to foresee the themes, cues and depending on the class of narrative and genre a lot more, like figuring the puzzle out in thrillers/detective/suspense stories, or just keeping up to the more abstract parts of them. People have different degrees of ability about it; some read faster, slower, at different comprehension levels. That's why for the best books the second and further posterior reads are usually enriched offering a deeper dive in it.

Let's compare both. Shooters need equipment progression and player skill, chances are that even with all the best equipment, your character won't do much unless the player has the right skills to do it.
RPGs need character skills and equipment progress (I guess), chances are that with all the best equipment and max level the character will be able to overcome most or all obstacles in the game if he has the skill to overcome them.

"RPG combat" being? In AP based turn based games it's key to manage your Action Points with the correct set of actions. If you attack at the wrong enemy with the wrong item (like trying to kill Frank Horrigan with throwing knives or a pipe rifle), opening your inventory when unneeded or just, you know, not having Risewild's Player SkillTM, you won't be able to complete it either.
DOS and DOS2 have a similar AP system as well and very very little of the combat is "just click in the guy and it'll get resolved" because of how you have to use different movement combos with your party members, IE knocking an enemy ranger down over a pile of poison sludge and then setting it on fire, then into steam to not have that enemy shooting back through the cloud.

Borderlands' combat, for the umpteenth time, consists in debuffing enemies and buffing yourself with actives and passives, applying the correct element and depending on your build then, using different types of weapons or even melee to apply the finalising segment of the fight. The more complicated fights in the game play more like raid bosses in WoW and other MMORPGS. Hell, some DLC parts, the "Invincible" bosses and Digistruct Peak are very clearly Raids in formula. How is that combat not overtly reliant on its RPG elements, exactly?

 

[felipepepe]

No amount of walls of text will change the core of the issue, which I've been pointing out from the start:

You guys never countered this point ("full package" vs elements).

This argument which you're so proud of is 100% subjective. It's all based on YOUR OPINION, thus it's fucking useless.

Yeah, I can look at the "full package", but I can come to a different conclusion than you. As it clearly happens.

I mentioned Richard Garriott & Tim Cain because they have very different definitions. Star Control 2 does not look like an RPG, but Tim Cain think it is and explained why. Similarly, the book features a quote from the STALKER devs on how they see the game as an "unusual mix of FPS and RPG".

So you and the STALKER devs disagree over that the game's "full package" means. And I don't see a single reason why your opinion should win over his.

In Fallout 2, the PC aimed the gun—it was them. The player targeted who they should shoot, but they couldn't hit a barn if they were inept... In FO3, the player personally points the weapon; and could compensate for low PC skill.

Fallout 1 is an RPG, Fallout 3 is an Action-RPG. Both are still part of the RPG genre. Not that hard, really.

I don't get this ridiculous puritanism of trying to make so that only "TRUE PURE RPGS" are called RPGs. It reminds me of dumb teenager shit like the "Nu Metal is not Metal" drama...

 

[Deleted member 93956]

The little I've dived through the book seems to be dedicated to qualifications of each game, too. It seems to be a constant that each entry dedicates some paragraphs to its implementation of RPG elements.

Oh, and out of the book as well:

“I guess the thing is, I don’t really view RPG and FPS as separate genres. FPS is the style of combat that the game has outside of VATS. But the RPG always influences how you use that combat system, whether it’s in VATS or in first-person real-time.”

– Josh Sawyer, New Vegas’ Lead Designer

 

[Risewild]

Damn, I can't use smilies again... Well, just imagine there are smilies in there.

And you didn't answer how the result of the player experience is somehow not involving ANY player skill. Nevermind that in most titles combat might not even take all that much of the gameplay time in the first place, thus having that not be really "much full package", isn't it?

I answered this in the previous post, please read it before keeping ignoring all the stuff I already mentioned before. I am tired of repeating myself over and over. Here is a tip, player skill and knowledge of the game (or being experienced by playing the game) is different. Read my shameful confessions.
Also tell me where ever I said that games of any genre does not involve player skill. Here's a tip, I haven't. I did mentioned that RPGs depend mainly on character skill to do things that character is supposed to do. I also mentioned that every game needs player skill because every game needs player input.

It's traditional action game design to have progressive escalation. However while in the case of DOOM and most other action games, it's tied to the usually near progression. You and your enemies are STATIC except when it comes to Doomguy's arsenal. DOOM utilises no chart whatsoever.

Most action games are incredibly doable when completely overpowered. Does that mean they are RPGs? As Felipe has said, you can't wrap everything under the same criteria especially if it means that it's exclusive and not inclusive.

You keep saying the full package thing arbitrarily when you're poking at things for a single facet of them.

Once again, you must read one single sentence of what I write because I once again keep repeating the same thing that contests that. While all you do is saying lalalalala it has progression and a chart lalalala...
So you say that Borderlands 2 is a RPG because you can't beat a overpowered boss unless you have overpowered weapons and highly leveled. And I counter by saying that the equipment and level means pretty much nothing if the player is not fast enough with his reflexes and hand eye coordination, to avoid the boss attacks and to hit the boss (just like any FPS and just not like any RPG).

So now you changed from Borderlands to nameless Action games? Tell me game names, facts. Because most action games still need the player to have quick reflexes and good hand eye coordination. Saying "incredibly doable" is totally nonsense.
Read my examples again. I mentioned one game that even with the most upgraded ship I still couldn't beat a boss, while my brother which is great at games like that, beats it without a fully upgraded ship and without much problems.

How am I poking at one single facet of them? So it is a single facet of a game the entirety of that game and how all the elements of that game work together in that game? I mentioned so many times that many genres use the same or similar elements, but it is how those elements are used in the game and how the rest of the game "wraps" around those elements that define a genre. Never have I focused on one single element unless it was to show that single element was not an exclusive of a genre. Look at my Football Manager example. Look at what I keep saying about Tim Cain considering Star Control 2 a RPG, hell, you can just look at random stuff I wrote on these 4 or 5 posts by now and chances are you will find me talking about elements and the full game.

Oh hey, a looter shooter and a turn based strategy game! Yeah, no.

Arnust, you have a knack to make me laugh. You realize that the FNV video you posted and then gave a genre based on what you see on the video is precisely the same as I wrote in my example? You're actually telling me that anyone who watches that video and doesn't know what FNV is will think it is a Shooter. I don't know why you're supporting me on this, wasn't your intention to somehow disprove what I said and not prove it?

The second video you say anyone that doesn't know what Fallout 1 is will look at that and say it is a... Turn Based Strategy game? Ahahahaha. You will kill me... I think i know what the problem is, not only you don't know what a RPG is supposed to be, you also don't know what some of the other genres are... Since when does that video looks like or has anything that will make anyone looking at it think it is the same genre as Civilization? Heroes of Might and Magic? etc. And not the same genre as Temple of Elemental Evil, Arcanum, Baldur's Gate?

Also don't think I didn't notice that while in my video examples I talked about showing the character in dialogue and in combat for the three example videos for both games (as to provide more than one element from each game and to show that those games use those elements in different ways if they are different genres). You once again only focus on one element, combat.

Please put more effort in your replies. I actually put some effort into mine.

While there’s no RPG-style XP/level up system, equipment and inventory management are vital. ere are several types of weapons, ammo and armor available, but their weight and durability must be carefully considered. Players also have to deal with hunger, bleeding, radiation and other types of hazards. e artifacts scattered across the Zone can be used to boost resistances, though usually with a drawback (e.g. reducing radiation but increasing bleeding).

Sadly, interaction with NPCs is usually limited to just accepting quests, trading or asking about rumors. However, STALKER does o er several di erent endings based on the player’s reputation with the Zone’s factions and NPCs, as well as how they chose to act in certain important story quests.

- The CRPG Book Project

It is also mentioned later that faction war and reputations would be reintroduced in the later games after being cut from it. You could read the thing, it's pretty interesting...

And that proves STALKER is a RPG because? How does the character fare without the player doing everything for the character? Equipment exist in many genres and usually have to be managed too (exception to this are point and click and text based adventure games. Those have inventories but management is usually not a thing). Play Doom and try not to get the best equipment available or ammo for it, try not getting an armor.
You want names of games where you have to manage inventory, needs, (some of them) have quests and need to manage and maintain equipment in a way that is very similar to what The CRPG Book Project says about STALKER?
Games like Terraria or Don't Starve. Those elements in those types of games are pretty close or even the same as in STALKER and yet, they are not RPGs *shocked face*. Not only are they not RPGs, but they do not feature in the CRPG book either. So now I would like to know why games like those two are not in the CRPG book? They are popular and liked games that use similar (or even the same) elements that "apparently make" STALKER a RPG. Not only that, but they also play more like RPGs than STALKER. I think there is even a mod that is supposed to turn Terraria into a full RPG game and everything.

Again. It's not an RPG if a paralytic can play it? I really want to see you describe how the learned doesn't become a skill, somehow, despite what you call "player skill" literally translates to "player input" in practice.

See, reading books is a skill. I kid not. Needless to say that it's not overly common for most people for it to be consumed in the hobby level, nor today nor ever, it IS a skill to be able to foresee the themes, cues and depending on the class of narrative and genre a lot more, like figuring the puzzle out in thrillers/detective/suspense stories, or just keeping up to the more abstract parts of them. People have different degrees of ability about it; some read faster, slower, at different comprehension levels. That's why for the best books the second and further posterior reads are usually enriched offering a deeper dive in it.

And again I see the despair in your reply. Starting to go to extremes as "It's not a RPG if a paralytic can play?".
Haven't I repeated myself several times that RPGs still need player input because games need player input. Haven't I differentiated in so many ways and given many examples about player skill, knowledge of the game and character skill? Why do you keep saying stuff related to something (that not only) I never said but also stuff I said that really goes against what you're arguing I said.
Now you compare skill in reading to skill in controlling a character in a Shooter and in a RPG? Really?
Where do you come up with these examples that are not even remotely related?

Somehow, being able to control, aim, dodge and shoot using your reflexes and hand-eye coordination in a shooter is a similar skill set and works in the same context (player skill to do things for the character vs character skill to do things for the character) as people different reading skills...

Please level up your skill in reading, because I lost count of how many times you say the most silly things to disprove stuff I never said, you come with examples that support what I said (instead of disproving it) or you talk about stuff that is not relevant to anything in this discussion. It makes you look... silly and desperate.

"RPG combat" being? In AP based turn based games it's key to manage your Action Points with the correct set of actions. If you attack at the wrong enemy with the wrong item (like trying to kill Frank Horrigan with throwing knives or a pipe rifle), opening your inventory when unneeded or just, you know, not having Risewild's Player SkillTM, you won't be able to complete it either.
DOS and DOS2 have a similar AP system as well and very very little of the combat is "just click in the guy and it'll get resolved" because of how you have to use different movement combos with your party members, IE knocking an enemy ranger down over a pile of poison sludge and then setting it on fire, then into steam to not have that enemy shooting back through the cloud.

And here you go once again. Putting words in my fingertips I never said and missing the point by miles. Really need to invest in reading skills.
I explained the difference between a character in a shooter needing the player to have enough skill to dodge aim and hit the enemy, despite if that character has the best equipment or max level. If a player doesn't have enough skill, the character will fail. Then I compared that with a RPG character that will have a high or max evasion skill and a high or max to hit skill/stat, and how that character will be able to avoid and/or hit an enemy most of the times, even if the player is not a skilled RPG player.
And you come up with a retort about AP? Really?
Again you are confusing player skill with player knowledge of the game. Even an unskilled player that reads a walktrhough or a guide for a RPG, that read the manual, that played the game for a bit or completed the tutorial will know not to play like an idiot (because your examples are really extreme). Because it has the knowledge of what and not to do to play the game properly. Now you compare a FPS player in that situation... He reads a guide for a FPS, he knows not to aim at the sky and use all of his ammo, he knows he has to dodge enemy attacks or he loses, he knows he has to shoot at enemies to kill them. He knows how not to play as an idiot, but even he played the game for hours and his skill is not very good, he will still lose easily. He has knowledge of the game, he knows how not to play as an idiot, but he still loses because FPS are more dependent on player skill.
I said this so many times it's starting to annoy me. This will be the last time I repeat myself. From now On I will just quote stuff you say and if I already said the answer for that before I will just reply "Read previous posts.".

Borderlands' combat, for the umpteenth time, consists in debuffing enemies and buffing yourself with actives and passives, applying the correct element and depending on your build then, using different types of weapons or even melee to apply the finalising segment of the fight. The more complicated fights in the game play more like raid bosses in WoW and other MMORPGS. Hell, some DLC parts, the "Invincible" bosses and Digistruct Peak are very clearly Raids in formula. How is that combat not overtly reliant on its RPG elements, exactly?

Because it still plays like any common FPS. You say it relies on debuff enemies and buff characters, but RPGs do not do rely on that, RPGs do not rely on raid formula either. Borderlands is a complex and quite good (specially in co-op) FPS and should be recognized for it on it's own merit. Labeling it as a RPG is just diminishing what the FPS genre can be.
All of those things do not make a FPS a RPG, it just makes a FPS more complex.
Also WoW and other MMORPGS still rely on Character skills more than player skill. Good luck trying to use a weapon you don't have the skill for, good luck opening locks without the lockpick skill, good luck making a potion without alchemy skill, good luck mining without the mining skill, etc.

Let me use yet a different way of showing what I mean:
Lets take the whole Borderlands 2 game, lets remove all the skill trees and buffs and debuffs (which for this mental exercise we will pretend are like RPG character skills) from it. Is it still "mechanically" playable (as in could you play it still like any other Shooter?)? Yes it is, it will be unbalanced as hell, it will be boring as hell but you can still play it and it is still a FPS (you can still collect weapons and you can still shoot those weapons and you can still kill enemies).
Now Remove the Shooter elements that rely on player skill for the character (player aiming, player shooting and player dodging) from it and you can't play it except talking to some NPCs. 99% of the game is now non-existant.
This is (once again) what I mean by Borderlands is a FPS and the elements that are also found in RPGs (even though they are found in many other genres too) are too "wrapped" in a FPS to change it's genre.

This argument which you're so proud of is 100% subjective. It's all based on YOUR OPINION, thus it's fucking useless.

Yeah, I can look at the "full package", but I can come to a different conclusion than you. As it clearly happens.

Once again, it is not MY opinion. Are you telling me that RPGs, FPS, RTS, Platformers and any other game genres are not defined by how they use elements in the full entirety of a game? Are you telling me that if someone plays Doom 1 and calls it an adventure game, it is an adventure game, because it is their opinion? Are you telling me that if someone plays a heavy metal song but has a musician playing a violin together with the rest of the band playing the song normally, it stops being Heavy Metal and becomes some other genre?
I also mentioned the drama with a joke example before.
Does grabbing Sonic 3 and change it so the characters have an inventory to store the rings and emeralds, make it so characters level up and can run or jump more with each level changes the genre of the game? Does it stop being a Plaformer? No it doesn't.

I mentioned Richard Garriott & Tim Cain because they have very different definitions. Star Control 2 does not look like an RPG, but Tim Cain think it is and explained why. Similarly, the book features a quote from the STALKER devs on how they see the game as an "unusual mix of FPS and RPG".

So you and the STALKER devs disagree over that the game's "full package" means. And I don't see a single reason why your opinion should win over his.

And as I said, no matter what your intention on quoting those two giants of cRPG industry was, they do not disprove anything I said and even say what I said over and over. Which is:

• RPGs are heavily dependent on character skills.
• RPGs do not need to allow role-playing
• There are game genres that allow role-playing that are not RPGs
• What defines a genre is how the elements of the game are implemented and work in the full game

​

See my previous point for more about .

So if I grab RPG Maker (a jRPG engine software that allows us to make jRPGs) and make a totally generic jRPG (tons of grinding, random battles, overworld map, etc) in it. But I put a skip dialogue feature and a full body image of each character on the center of the screen behind the dialogue box when they talk. I can say it is an unusual mix of jRPG and Visual Novel and sell it as a VN?
Game devs will say whatever they want about their games to make the game more popular and to hype people. I can probably count by the fingers of one hand the game creators that didn't lie about their games.

I once again point to my previous example of games like Terraria and Don't Starve that contain the same "RPG elements" as STALKER. Are those games also cRPGs?

 

[Deleted member 93956]

I say things based in your metric even if you haven't typed that exact same thing. It's also often called Paraphrasing. You yourself use absurd examples and straw men, like if somehow calling DOOM an Adventure game is the same as calling a game with prominent RPG elements an RPG which the most of the time means that it actually is.

Honestly, this is now NUH HUH YOU AIN'T GOT IT going both ways except you're way more steadfast with the writing. With the time you invest in this topic every time a thread is derailed for it you could rather spend it on making your own document defining what an RPG is supposed to be (in your mind, because I can't bear that you're pretending to be objective when the bottomline of the discussion is that the book should respect a set of conventions that YOU hold) and in the future just link it and go make a sandwich.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Oh hey, a looter shooter and a turn based strategy game! Yeah, no.

Yeah...Yes. Unfortunately New Vegas is derived of FO3. It has a lot of carefully designed RPG systems in it... and yet it inherits the flaws of FO3. The PC is a digital costume.

An example from both: Hidden traps
The PC can have a very low or high perception, but a hidden trap is only detected if the player notices it—and not if they don't. The astute PC can be injured by a trap that they would have detected, but that the player didn't see; and the almost blind PC can find every trap if the player is looking for them.

In Fallout, the traps only appear visible if the PC has detected them; it should have been this way in FO3.

A player can know the answer to a question that the PC does not—and they should not be able to affect the PC's options—the PC doesn't know the answer... But more importantly: the PC can know the answer to a question that the player does not—it's in their character, and ideally the player shouldn't be the PC's handicap.

*I consider NV an RPG... on merit, but with flawed core gameplay; RPGs should evaluate the outcome of everything that affects, or that is affected by, the PC, based on their skills & stats, not player twitch (or insight). If the character could not have achieved a thing by their own talent, then it should not happen due to the player's.

**FO3 only has merit in the landscaping.

____

How (the hell) is Borderlands considered an RPG to anyone?
(...And do they also consider N.O.L.F. 2 to be an RPG? Team-Fortress?—at least there is a twisted logic to that one.)

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Yeah...Yes. Unfortunately New Vegas is derived of FO3. It has a lot of carefully designed RPG systems in it... and yet it inherits the flaws of FO3. The PC is a digital costume.

An example from both: Hidden traps
The PC can have a very low or high perception, but a hidden trap is only detected if the player notices it—and not if they don't. The astute PC can be injured by a trap that they would have detected, but that the player didn't see; and the almost blind PC can find every trap if the player is looking for them.

In Fallout, the traps only appear visible if the PC has detected them; it should have been this way in FO3.

*I consider NV an RPG... on meritorious (but flawed core...) gameplay; RPGs should evaluate the outcome of everything that affects, or that is affected by the PC, based on their skills & stats.

FO3 only has merit in the landscaping.

Eh, traps are, no pun intended, a complicated design trapping. Only in the more abstracted RPGs you can safely relegate them off a perceptive player's eyes. As the Action RPG that Fallout 3 and NV are it'd be kind of plain bullshit that most of the gameplay consists of using their IRL perception except that one extremely dangerous thing (of course you could do it so that invisible traps are pretty weak or something). At least NV at some point has some skill checks on trapped or hazardous environment hazards or "events", like V22's flammable gas and surely more that I can think of. The buried mines in some areas, most notably Repconn Test Facility, are more effective than you'd think, too. Plus, not being actually able to disarm some traps even if they are visible will need you to gamble it a fair lot. Jumping or ducking under them is misleading and collisions aren't exactly like Dishonored's.

Anyway, an obvious merit of Fo3 is allowing for NV to exist in the first place and relive interest in the Fallout franchise; what was done further on from Bethesda's part can't really be blamed on the game itself. It also was one of the highlights of the early generation especially on console.

 

[Gizmojunk]

At least NV at some point has some skill checks on trapped or hazardous environment hazards or "events", like V22's flammable gas and surely more that I can think of.

That's heartening to learn; I wasn't aware of that until now. I do need to finish NV.

Eh, traps are, no pun intended, a complicated design trapping. Only in the more abstracted RPGs you can safely relegate them off a perceptive player's eyes. As the Action RPG that Fallout 3 and NV are it'd be kind of plain bullshit that most of the gameplay consists of using their IRL perception except that one extremely dangerous thing (of course you could do it so that invisible traps are pretty weak or something).

This is why their core premise was wrong for the series. They cloned the Oblivion gameplay for use in the Fallout IP setting.

Anyway, an obvious merit of Fo3 is allowing for NV to exist in the first place and relive interest in the Fallout franchise; what was done further on from Bethesda's part can't really be blamed on the game itself. It also was one of the highlights of the early generation especially on console.

That's a very good point.
NV is a work of art, made from questionable material.

Spoiler

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Being more pessimistic I'd say that NV is still a poo but it has an unforeseen amount of corn dips.

 

[0wing]

>S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
>Not dedicating the page entierly to Call of Pripyat, a game as RPG-y as it has a chance to get to.
Bad felipa, decline enabler

 

[Risewild]

is the same as calling a game with prominent RPG elements an RPG which the most of the time means that it actually is.

Honestly, this is now NUH HUH YOU AIN'T GOT IT going both ways except you're way more steadfast with the writing. With the time you invest in this topic every time a thread is derailed for it you could rather spend it on making your own document defining what an RPG is supposed to be (in your mind, because I can't bear that you're pretending to be objective when the bottomline of the discussion is that the book should respect a set of conventions that YOU hold) and in the future just link it and go make a sandwich.

But they are not RPG elements. STALKER so called RPG elements are also elements used in other games that are not RPGs. So why in the case of STALKER are they "RPG elements". I gave two examples Terraria and Don't Starve use the same "RPG elements" and they are not RPGs. Heroes of Might and Magic games, for another example, have so many more "RPG Elements" than STALKER (plenty of character stats and values, equipment [like armors and weapons and artifacts and gloves and rings and so on], inventory that you have to manage because you have limited inventory space, magic spells, quests, exp, leveling up, etc) and yet, it is not a RPG, it was never a RPG and will never be a RPG. Might and Magic games which are from the same studios and happen in the same universe are RPGs.

I said plenty of times that "RPG elements" do not exist. What exists are RPG using elements that can be found in other genres but they are used differently in the "full game" than in a different genre.
I just mentioned Heroes of Might and Magic as an example. And HoMM even use some of those "RPG elements" the exact same way as RPGs, but the game around those elements makes the series not be RPG. Another example I referred to in my last posts was Football Manager games, those games also use a lot of "RPG elements" and in some ways they are used the same. Every character has their own skill and stats, they rise with "exp"/training and playing matches, they use those stats to be able to do things in the game (good luck replacing your goalkeeper with 97 on Positioning with a youngster with just 20 and see him trying to catch a ball for example) and yet, Sport Managers are not RPGs.

So once again, saying that since STALKER has these so called "RPG elements" makes it a RPG is totally bonkers. Because there are plenty of games out there that use the so called "RPG elements" more and in a closer way to actual RPG games but they are not RPGs and never were.

I keep telling you guys all of these examples of games with "RPG elements" that are not RPGs (and with time and interest I could spend a couple hours reaching my memory and posting a giant list of every single game I can think of that uses "RPG elements" and it's not a RPG) which is enough proof that a game just having those elements does not automatically turn a game into a RPG. But all you guys keep saying is "that's your opinion" "it has RPG elements".

How about you guys actually illustrate your point and tell me why STALKER is a RPG while all the other games and genres I mentioned that use those same or even more elements (and some in a way closer to a RPG) are not? I bet all you can come up with is "They are RPGs" because if you still look at them and how they use the same elements your definition of RPG will have to include them.

Spoiler: HoMM more RPG than some so called RPGs