By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - whats the best SRPG you have ever played ?

Khuutra on 24 June 2009
Torillian said:
Khuutra said:
Torillian said:
Khuutra said:

So the primary distinction is not anything to do with role-playing, but simply carrying units over between missions.

That's a different role, in a TBS you are a commander with a nameless army that you create anew for each battle.  In an SRPG you are the leader of a large band of adventurers of some kind.  You add new characters, but you don't just create 40 warriors for a battle you use your level 30 warrior that you created and have slowly leveled through different battles.

This is a false distiction. All "SRPGs" are turn-based strategy games, with or without story-telling elements. There has been narrative and consistent characterization in turn-based strategy games since before Dungeons and Dragons even existed.

I didn't say characterization.  Look, here's an easy distinction.  In SRPG's you get and slowly level characters to use in strategic fights.  In TBS you don't, you make a base and create units to fight in said strategic fights.

Pardon me, it appears that I mispoke.

When I say "consistent characterization" I meant "persistent character building", which is to say leveling. There's actually leveling in Advance Wars, it'sj ust that it only lasts for a single mission.

The difference between them is non-existent if you want to base it on that mechanic.



Around the Network
Kaixes on 24 June 2009

FF Tactics: The War of the Lions. No question about it.



Currently playing: Marvel vs. Capcom 3, League of Legends

Khuutra on 24 June 2009
Words Of Wisdom said:
Khuutra said:

So the primary distinction is not anything to do with role-playing, but simply carrying units over between missions.

More or less.  RPGs aren't really about role-playing anymore (except mostly wRPGs which actually let you make decisions) but that's a different discussion all-together.  Overal, games today are much more story-oriented than they used to be.  Now just about every game has a story.  Even some sports games have a story where you take the role of someone.  Advance Wars games have stories where you follow the path of the COs.  

Since we can't use story to differentiate games, we have to use gameplay.  I feel the biggest gameplay difference is that TBS lets you create new units in missions whereas sRPGs let you carry units over.

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).



g-value on 24 June 2009

Easily Disgaea 1.



ChichiriMuyo on 24 June 2009

Final Fantasy Tactics



You do not have the right to never be offended.

Around the Network
Torillian on 24 June 2009
Khuutra said:
Torillian said:
Khuutra said:
Torillian said:
Khuutra said:

So the primary distinction is not anything to do with role-playing, but simply carrying units over between missions.

That's a different role, in a TBS you are a commander with a nameless army that you create anew for each battle.  In an SRPG you are the leader of a large band of adventurers of some kind.  You add new characters, but you don't just create 40 warriors for a battle you use your level 30 warrior that you created and have slowly leveled through different battles.

This is a false distiction. All "SRPGs" are turn-based strategy games, with or without story-telling elements. There has been narrative and consistent characterization in turn-based strategy games since before Dungeons and Dragons even existed.

I didn't say characterization.  Look, here's an easy distinction.  In SRPG's you get and slowly level characters to use in strategic fights.  In TBS you don't, you make a base and create units to fight in said strategic fights.

Pardon me, it appears that I mispoke.

When I say "consistent characterization" I meant "persistent character building", which is to say leveling. There's actually leveling in Advance Wars, it'sj ust that it only lasts for a single mission.

The difference between them is non-existent if you want to base it on that mechanic.

But I just made the distinction.  In TBS the leveling lasts through a single battle, just like most any strategy game.  In an SRPG the leveling persists throughout the entire game.  Seems to work for every example I can think of.



...

Khuutra on 24 June 2009
Torillian said:
Khuutra said:
Torillian said:

I didn't say characterization.  Look, here's an easy distinction.  In SRPG's you get and slowly level characters to use in strategic fights.  In TBS you don't, you make a base and create units to fight in said strategic fights.

Pardon me, it appears that I mispoke.

When I say "consistent characterization" I meant "persistent character building", which is to say leveling. There's actually leveling in Advance Wars, it'sj ust that it only lasts for a single mission.

The difference between them is non-existent if you want to base it on that mechanic.

But I just made the distinction.  In TBS the leveling lasts through a single battle, just like most any strategy game.  In an SRPG the leveling persists throughout the entire game.  Seems to work for every example I can think of.

So you're saying that if I draw up a pen and paper system wherein character level and carry over but there is no narrative or characterization - this is still a role-playing game?

I'm sorry, that's just wrong.



Torillian on 24 June 2009
Khuutra said:
Torillian said:
Khuutra said:
Torillian said:

I didn't say characterization.  Look, here's an easy distinction.  In SRPG's you get and slowly level characters to use in strategic fights.  In TBS you don't, you make a base and create units to fight in said strategic fights.

Pardon me, it appears that I mispoke.

When I say "consistent characterization" I meant "persistent character building", which is to say leveling. There's actually leveling in Advance Wars, it'sj ust that it only lasts for a single mission.

The difference between them is non-existent if you want to base it on that mechanic.

But I just made the distinction.  In TBS the leveling lasts through a single battle, just like most any strategy game.  In an SRPG the leveling persists throughout the entire game.  Seems to work for every example I can think of.

So you're saying that if I draw up a pen and paper system wherein character level and carry over but there is no narrative or characterization - this is still a role-playing game?

I'm sorry, that's just wrong.

I am only talking of the distinction between Strategy game and SRPG.  It's a definite distinction that separates the two, but just having that doesn't make a game an RPG.  It's like I just told you that a definite distinction between a PS3 and a 360 is that the PS3 is black, and then you argue that if you painted a brick Black that under my system it would be a PS3. 

No, obviously there are other things that make up an SRPG, this is just the thing that defines it from being different from a strategy game.



...

ROBOTECHHEAVEN on 24 June 2009

off-topic, but is the dlc for valkyria chronicles any good ?



GAMERTAG IS ANIMEHEAVEN X23

PSN ID IS : ANIMEREALM 

PROUD MEMBER OF THE RPG FAN CLUB THREAD

ALL-TIME FAVORITE JRPG IS : LOST ODYSSEY

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=52882&page=1

Words Of Wisdom on 24 June 2009
Khuutra said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Khuutra said:

So the primary distinction is not anything to do with role-playing, but simply carrying units over between missions.

More or less.  RPGs aren't really about role-playing anymore (except mostly wRPGs which actually let you make decisions) but that's a different discussion all-together.  Overal, games today are much more story-oriented than they used to be.  Now just about every game has a story.  Even some sports games have a story where you take the role of someone.  Advance Wars games have stories where you follow the path of the COs.  

Since we can't use story to differentiate games, we have to use gameplay.  I feel the biggest gameplay difference is that TBS lets you create new units in missions whereas sRPGs let you carry units over.

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.