Support NeoGAF

[KirbyKid]

Well, just because it's POSSIBLE to beat Dark Souls or some other RPGs at level 1if you're a maniac doesn't really change the point. It's clear that success in everyone's first playthrough, and any playthrough where they aren't deliberately trying to "stretch" the rules of the game, will be determined at least as much by character skill as player skill. Obviously player skill is HUGELY IMPORTANT in a game like Dark Souls, but if something is too hard you can always bounce, level up your character, and return later. That's the key. And that isn't possible in games that aren't RPGs. That's what made it part of our criteria.

Though the naked level 1 run is possible, that's not what he was talking about. The souls games are action games. And it takes a much stronger grasp on design and language to articulate how much skill one challenge takes compared to another. You can't say player skill is "hugely important" and then talk about possible ways to reduce its importance without framing your point in a much broader context.

The very nature of a weapon or a power-up in all games is to undermine challenge. How else will it be "powerful." So whether you're leveling up in an RPG, hunting gear in a Souls game, or storing power-ups in a 2D Mario platformer, simply describing that players will use features of the game to play the game doesn't say much.

I've explained it before talking about complex genres like adventure games or RPGs is tough. Trying to talk about action-adventure or action-rpgs is even harder.

Well, while I certainly appreciate your thoughtful reply, I do want to note that this criteria was outline and paraphrased in the intro to the Top 100 RPGs feature itself. Additionally, what I wrote above was the criteria by which we judged whether a game was an RPG or not. It was NOT the criteria by which we evaluated the quality of the games, which included elements of presentation, system interactions, storytelling, and so-on.

And I do thank you again for your thoughtful reply, but when we say we considered combat a requirement in a game for us to consider it an RPG and you reply "combat isn't a requirement" it doesn't really give a discussion much room to grow.

I'm glad you talked about your criteria for evaluating each individual RPG. I didn't want to imply that you didn't have it somewhere. But, as you might expect, no one here is talking about it. If you'd like me to take a close look at your other criteria, I'd be happy to.

I understand that what you wrote is just the part talking about the RPG genre. This part is a foundation element for the rest of your criteria and list, which is why I focused on it.

If you don't have the time to carefully consider my reply, that's fine. But the conversation is wide open, and I'm ready when you are if you want to seriously engage. I wrote so many words for a reason. Each sentence was carefully written so that you couldn't simply reduce it to a "well to each his own" or "you said combat isn't required so...". I address the concepts through common gaming language to get at the real issues behind this whole discussion.

I study the language of game design, write about games, and work on games every day. I love deep dives and long discussions. If that's something you're interesting in then let's talk.

 

[eot]

I gotta disagree on this one. While the RPG stuff (levels/stats) definitely makes your character more powerful, the Souls games are more akin to Zelda - you need to move your avatar *well* in order to succeed.

A few extra levels won't make up for being bad at the game.

To beat the Souls games at SL1 you have to use the RPG mechanics though, just not the leveling up system. It's not all that different from levelling your character but never your gear. Sure it's technically possible to beat them without any of that stuff, but it's not practical at all.

edit: welp I guess someone already said this more or less

Anyway, saying that games that reward player skill can't be RPGs is hugely limiting. Do you restrict it to dexterity based skill, as opposed to strategy? It's too arbitrary to make a good definition that way.

 

[Harmondale]

Might and magic VII got robbed

 

[Vincent Grayson]

To beat the Souls games at SL1 you have to use the RPG mechanics though, just not the leveling up system. It's not all that different from levelling your character but never your gear. Sure it's technically possible to beat them without any of that stuff, but it's not practical at all.

edit: welp I guess someone already said this more or less

Anyway, saying that games that reward player skill can't be RPGs is hugely limiting. Do you restrict it to dexterity based skill, as opposed to strategy? It's too arbitrary to make a good definition that way.

It's more a confluence of things IMO. I would not remove all games which rely on manual dexterity from the category of "RPG", but a game like Souls where it also has a very thin narrative (IMO, a core element of RPGs), and a focus on beating bosses through pattern memorization and player movement (a core element of action games), it's more action game than RPG.

Like, if someone said "I love RPGs", I would assume they mean things like Final Fantasy and Baldur's Gate, and not things like Dark Souls and Monster Hunter.

 

[Zolbrod]

Obviously player skill is HUGELY IMPORTANT in a game like Dark Souls, but if something is too hard you can always bounce, level up your character, and return later. That's the key. And that isn't possible in games that aren't RPGs. That's what made it part of our criteria.

I think that's fair, but then why is Monster Hunter on the list?
I've never looked at MH games as RPGs because there is no character progression and it's all action/player skill-based.

Even in Japan, where the serious is the most popular, they are categorized as action games, not RPGs...

 

[MarmiteBadger]

It's more a confluence of things IMO. I would not remove all games which rely on manual dexterity from the category of "RPG", but a game like Souls where it also has a very thin narrative (IMO, a core element of RPGs), and a focus on beating bosses through pattern memorization and player movement (a core element of action games), it's more action game than RPG.

Like, if someone said "I love RPGs", I would assume they mean things like Final Fantasy and Baldur's Gate, and not things like Dark Souls and Monster Hunter.

I'm glad that Baldur's Gate made the list and that it's sequel was in the top five. But there was games that I was scratching my head thinking "What the were they judging to put this game on the list?" I don't think I saw this game on the top one hundred, but I was hoping Neverwinter would make the list (not the mmo, the first one). Even though it wasn't as great as Baldur's Gate, it was still very good and had a lot of expansions.

I think that's fair, but then why is Monster Hunter on the list?
I've never looked at MH games as RPGs because there is no character progression and it's all action/player skill-based.

Even in Japan, where the serious is the most popular, they are categorized as action games, not RPGs...

I wouldn't have considered Monster Hunter an rpg. I agree on this, I honestly think IGN just looked at the game and went "you craft, there are medieval weapons, and there is somewhat of a story... IGN TOP 100 RPG!!! GO!"

 

[eot]

It's more a confluence of things IMO. I would not remove all games which rely on manual dexterity from the category of "RPG", but a game like Souls where it also has a very thin narrative (IMO, a core element of RPGs), and a focus on beating bosses through pattern memorization and player movement (a core element of action games), it's more action game than RPG.

Like, if someone said "I love RPGs", I would assume they mean things like Final Fantasy and Baldur's Gate, and not things like Dark Souls and Monster Hunter.

I'm a bit tired of discussing the narrative of Souls games, but still I don't think "thin" is the right word. They are quite rich, even though they are obfuscated.

When you say action game I think of character action games, like the ones Platinum makes. To me Dark Souls has more in common with RPGs than it does character action games. I get why people would be reluctant to call it one and I guess it comes down to how broad you want to make the definition of "RPG". If Dark Souls had a quest log and NPCs giving you explicit missions that wouldn't make it more of an RPG to me. Those are just ways that traditional RPGs have translated and formalized into game mechanics the idea of going on an adventure. Dark Souls still retains the spirit of that, it just doesn't borrow all the same trappings.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I'm a bit tired of discussing the narrative of Souls games, but still I don't think "thin" is the right word. They are quite rich, even though they are obfuscated.

When you say action game I think of character action games, like the ones Platinum makes. To me Dark Souls has more in common with RPGs than it does character action games. I get why people would be reluctant to call it one and I guess it comes down to how broad you want to make the definition of "RPG". If Dark Souls had a quest log and NPCs giving you explicit missions that wouldn't make it more of an RPG to me. Those are just ways that traditional RPGs have translated and formalized into game mechanics the idea of going on an adventure. Dark Souls still retains the spirit of that, it just doesn't borrow all the same trappings.

But then, wouldn't that make it an Adventure game, like Zelda?

To me, adding quest logs and "in your face" story and missions is a big part of what makes something an RPG. Note, of course, a quest log is not necessarily required, but unless quests are few and far between, a lot is really useful.

 

[Theodoricos]

No KotOR 2 anywhere in a Top 100 RPG list is a freaking crime.

 

[jennetics]

Final Fantasy VIII isn't even my favorite JRPG, but it not being included while Legend of Dragoon was is...that's just silly, yo.

 

[FinalAres]

No KotOR 2 anywhere in a Top 100 RPG list is a freaking crime.

Now this is the biggest omission for me.

I played the unpatched version recently and was a surprised how great it still was. The ending is a bit rushed but other than that it feels complete. The dialogue is incredible, the world's interesting. So much better than the first, and that's really saying something.

 

[capitalCORN]

No KotOR 2 anywhere in a Top 100 RPG list is a freaking crime.

How about the Xeen Trilogy? Absolutely shameless.

 

[eot]

But then, wouldn't that make it an Adventure game, like Zelda?

To me, adding quest logs and "in your face" story and missions is a big part of what makes something an RPG. Note, of course, a quest log is not necessarily required, but unless quests are few and far between, a lot is really useful.

For me the difference is that Dark Souls has a complex character progression and item system, which doesn't exist in at leas the Zeldas I've played. Bloodborne doesn't, and I'm much less inclined to call that game an RPG.

Also, going back to the previous discussion: even though people complain about it, it's totally possible to play Dark Souls without being dexterous at all, only using the RPG mechanics.

Now this is the biggest omission for me.

I played the unpatched version recently and was a surprised how great it still was. The ending is a bit rushed but other than that it feels complete. The dialogue is incredible, the world's interesting. So much better than the first, and that's really saying something.

Personally I think it should be in the top 10.

 

[Rob2K19]

Well, shit. They placed Golden Sun higher than Kingdom Hearts 2. I'm conflicted right now.

 

[NoctisVsStar]

I love P4G but that it's better than FF7?

 

[MarmiteBadger]

I love P4G but that it's better than FF7?

That was my reaction after I read the entire top 100 RPG's.

 

[Famassu]

It's more a confluence of things IMO. I would not remove all games which rely on manual dexterity from the category of "RPG", but a game like Souls where it also has a very thin narrative (IMO, a core element of RPGs), and a focus on beating bosses through pattern memorization and player movement (a core element of action games), it's more action game than RPG.

Like, if someone said "I love RPGs", I would assume they mean things like Final Fantasy and Baldur's Gate, and not things like Dark Souls and Monster Hunter.

Story isn't a necessity to be considered an RPG. Combat heavy/focused RPGs are still RPGs. Lots of video game RPGs have their roots in pen & paper dungeon crawling RPGs that have nothing but dungeons & combat (maybe some traps & other obstacles) that are, indeed, still considered RPGs. Don't mistake your own preference of "I want a story in my RPGs" as something that is an actual limitation as to what can and cannot be considered an RPG.

 

[TissueBox]

FFXII at #31? Haha YEES! *high-fives and misses*

 

[Devilgunman]

62 - Breath of Fire III
05 - World of Warcraft

wut.

I understand WoW is super popular, but they didn't bring anything new to the table besides "!" above NPC's heads, imho.

You're crazy saying WoW didn't bring anything new. It basically renovated the mmo rpg genre and created the standard for mmo ever since. There are reasons why many mmo coming after WoW try to rip off WoW formula and most of them fail miserably.

 

[RiZ III]

Panzer Dragoon Saga would be #0