By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Khuutra on 24 June 2009
Edit Thread
Words Of Wisdom said:
Khuutra said:

If this is your distinction, you're only talking about a single game mechanic in turn-based strategy games. There is no such thing as a Strategic RPG unless you are talking about the narrative fact of playing a character - in which case Advance Wars is an RPG but Risk is not (assuming that you do not pretend to be a conqueror).

I'm not sure I understand.  Your first sentence and the rest of your post have nothing to do with each other.  The rest is basically providing of an example of why story can't be the dividing factor.

As for the first part, a single gameplay mechanic is often built on a foundation of other equally simple gaming mechanics.  In PC TBS games such as Age of Wonders and Heroes of Might and Magic, it's much easier to see all the things that go into the game such as area capture, resource gathering, castle/base building, building upgrading, and army raising.  Advance Wars probably wasn't the best title to draw comparisons with since it simplifies and removes a lot of the more elaborate PC game mechanics.

So where are you going with this discussion?  Are you agreeing with me?  Disagreeing with me?  I'm not clear on that.

I apologize, I appear to be stepping all over my own feet.

I am disagreeing with your distinction. The difference between a role-playing game and a non-role-playing game cannot be a game mechanic that does not involve role-playing. There are complex turn-based strategy games and simplistic ones, just like there are plot-based turn-based strategy games and those without any plot at all. There are TBS games that carry over units, and others that don't. The only distinction with "SRPGs", by virtue of the word itself, is the fact of playing a role. Trying ot come up with any definition dependent on somehting other than that is ignoring what 'RPG' means.

Advance Wars is an RPG. Risk isn't.