| ROBOTECHHEAVEN said: off-topic, but is the dlc for valkyria chronicles any good ? |
Behind her Blue Flame is good, Eddy's Mission is meh.
...
Torillian said:
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. |
And I'm telling you that that is a false distinction. There is no such thing as an SRPG without role-playing, but all games you call "SRPGs" are turn-based strategy games with one specific implementation of the system. When I can draw up a system that has no story, no named characters, and no apparent reason for the combat going on, but you still call it an SRPG, you have to realize that your definition is wrong. There is no role-playing going on in this scenario, not even in the sense that Mario Bros. is role-playing.
They're all turn-based strategy games. Some have stories and some don't.
Holy crap Khuutra, this is exhasperating. For the last time, I did not say that that's the only defining aspect of an SRPG. I said that that's what makes it different from all other TBS games.
An SRPG has to have an overarching story but a TBS can have that two, the thing that SRPG's always have that TBS games don't is what I mentioned.
...
Words Of Wisdom said:
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.
| Torillian said: Holy crap Khuutra, this is exhasperating. For the last time, I did not say that that's the only defining aspect of an SRPG. I said that that's what makes it different from all other TBS games. An SRPG has to have an overarching story but a TBS can have that two, the thing that SRPG's always have that TBS games don't is what I mentioned. |
Your second and third sentences contradict each other - it's not the "one defining aspect of an SRPG" but it is "what makes it different from all other TBS games"?
Try Battle of Wesnoth, specifically the campaign modes with no narratives.
Your distinction is incorrect. The only difference is role-playing. Carrying over units has nothing to do with it.
How about this then. A definition that requires three things. The game has to have strategic battle system, overarching story, and character development that goes through the entire game and not just a single battle.
...
| Torillian said: How about this then. A definition that requires three things. The game has to have strategic battle system, overarching story, and character development that goes through the entire game and not just a single battle. |
I like mine better, since it involves two requirements.
1. It is a strategy game (it does not even need to be turn-based, but we'll say that for the sake of this discussion).
2. It involves role-playing.
Anything else is just extra baggage. Yes, it includes games that don't fit your definition, but it is clear-cut and difficult to misinterpret.
jeanne darc by far is my best one, i just love the gameplay and the shiny colors and graphs
| Khuutra said: 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. |
I think how you imagine things should be and the way the genres have evolved over the years differ.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
