Nem said:
I dont really see the connection with your example of Dungeons and dragons. So, the comparisons sounds as ridiculous to me. Is this about the table top games? Those are called RPG's because you create your own narritive. The game gives you the setting. Still, my end point is that this kind of "RPG" wich i have trouble considering so, cannot be the best the genre has to offer. Not disdaining its quality, but just its qualification. Something i'm not sure some understood. |
The character is a chosen undead. He goes and kills these things because he is manipulated to by these other powers/characters (which you find out later on.) You meet plenty of people in Dark Souls (I just had the first encounter with Soltaire of Astora in my current playthrough after undead burg. You can meet him in many other situations.) Have you not played the game? Dark Souls certainly isn't the only role-playing game that only has one main character and many static NPC's that you interact with limitedly. There are so many other examples of this kind of RPG. The Elder Scrolls being the most obvious example (sure there is MORE dialogue in the Elder Scrolls, but it doesn't mean this format is different.)
The table top games were the predecessors to the Role Playing video-game genre. The first RPG's in the video game format were all text-based and featured premises like Dungeons and Dragons. They aren't separate entities. The genre of RPG is the same genre that you see in the table top games. Just like the strategy genre found in video games is the same genre you find in board games like Risk. They are mechancially the same games, one is just in the video format while the other is composed of physical objects. Both are games though.
Edit: Also it isn't just a setting. Your actions and decisions affect how the world changes and which ending you receive.THAT IS A NARRATIVE, not a setting.
