Printable View
So I'm sorting out the genres of my top games list and I notice some are classified (according to Google) as RPG and others as action RPG. I'm really not good with genres, so could someone give me a rundown on what some key differences and similarities are?
And for the purpose of more discussion, which do you prefer and why? Thanks for the help :jess:
Basically, a RPG turns into an action RPG if hits/misses depend on your weapon/spell's hitbox colliding with the target's hitbox. It's kind of the same mechanic that's used to determine if attacks in action games (such as for example devil may cry, bayonetta and even street fighter) succeed.
FF12 is not an action RPG even if it might look like one for someone who hasn't played it (although it has some action-like elements). Hits/misses are determined by your stats (unless you are out of range), not whether or not your character's weapon moved through the target's position. Practically all tales games and star ocean games are action RPGs, and so are all the recent elder scroll games (i actually don't know about 1 and 2), the new fallout games, secret of mana games, and the mass effect games. They all require you as the player to directly execute an attack at the right time and in the right place.
Almost no final fantasy games are action RPGs, except the upcoming FF15. FF10-2, and 13 1-3 kind of slightly dip into a grey area, because attacks can be interrupted by your own attacks, and movement resulting from one command can block another character from executing an attack and also move you in and out of areas of effect. I guess you could say it has action elements in the same way some first person shooters have RPG elements.
I guess FF11 and 14 also kind of blur the lines, but they are not pure action RPGs. They don't emply hitboxes and you can't just backstep to avoid a standard attack that was initiated while you were in range.
Action RPGs almost always use a real-time battle system, although many allow you to freeze time while selecting spells or items. Regular RPGs usually have a turn based system in one way or another. ATB is still turn based but not as static and absolute as the pure turn based systems used in FF1-3.
Personally, I often lean towards action RPGs. I like to be able to overcome statistical disadvantages by simply being really good.
Whaaaaat no no no no no. Don't let the dressing fool you, those games are very much still standard RPGs, just with more movement involved in the combat system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
Action RPGs almost never have transitions from exploration to combat. Enemies just come at you and you have to deal with them in real time as you walk around. Kingdom Hearts is a great non-WRPG example of this. Dirge of Cerberus also shades more toward action RPG than shooter (especially since it's not first-person).
Crisis Core is kind of blurry.
Google called SO4 an action RPG so :shrug:
I dunno. Genres confuse me
I disagree. SO3 and 4 are action RPGs. But sure, the standard modes have assists that move you into range before attacking. That can be turned off later, however, at least in SO3.
I don't consider screen changes (or lack thereof) to be a defining trait of action RPGs.
Additionally, you can dodge projectiles by moving around, even if they are homing on you, that's another indication that it is an action RPG as well.
I agree with Mirage's definition, though the distinction can be confusing. For example, Dragon Age Origins seems like a standard RPG but Dragon Age II is more action RPG. But they are also very similar and I could see them classified in either way.
That doesn't make any sense. Combat genre isn't dictated by the method the game uses to present the combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by metagloria
It wouldn't make sense if it was a rigid definition instead of a feature that is observed to be common in the genre.
Another definition of ARPG, and the one I tend to use myself, is the sort of game Diablo is - often light on the role-playing elements, but where you wade through an absolute troutton of enemies to gain ever better loot.
This definition is definitely more common in the PC sphere though.
Not sure what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloZer0
Video games are modular by nature. There are sets of modules that are common within a genre but each one is ultimately interchangeable with anything else. Tales looks like an action RPG, plays like an action RPG and behaves like an action RPG in every way aside from the fact that battles take place on a separate map. It would be silly to consider it inherently different because of that, and I think if you do, you're being pedantic. The "video game genre" is already a pretty meaningless set of labels that need to be reconsidered, and this isn't doing it any favors. Trying to interpret current genres literally, figuratively or in a historical context doesn't lead you down any productive roads and is a gigantic barrier in front of meaningful discourse. Something something Newton's flaming laser sword.
As Mister Adequate points out, the name of the genre isn't even consistent within itself. In PC gaming, "action RPG" essentially means "Diablo-like." Diablo doesn't have anything beyond the most rudimentary form of collision detection. I think battle screen transitions are okay.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Adequate
I consider action-RPGs to be isometric view lootfest games a la Diablo.
I do realize and accept that this definition is largely applied to CRPGs and WRPGs (aka the ones I tend to play) whereas I'm on a JRPG forum. xD
Google calls the tales series RPG's and not ARPGs
I'm so confused about everything
It doesn't matter much I'm mostly just curious since people do use them to label types of games and I wanted to see what my preferred genres were. So if people mention like an ARPG I'd know if I like those types of games or not? Not sure if making sense
How about this:
An action RPG is an action/adventure style game with RPG elements. If the RPG elements weren't there, it would just be an action/adventure game.
^ But what constitutes an RPG element? Where does one draws the line? I think it doesn't do to see these labels as something set in stone but as constantly evolving. RPGs themselves seem to be turning more action oriented in general.
I generally call Tales games Action RPGs, so I agree with Mirage's definition. I'd never really thought of it that was before, but the hitbox thing is a really good way of separating the two. Perhaps another way of saying it is that Action RPGs rely on reflexes and 'twitch' skill whereas other RPGs only really require tactics. That definition would allow things like Diablo to also be classed an an ARPG as rapid clicking is required for positioning, dodging etc, much like in a Tales or Star Ocean game.
FFVII, on the other hand, is all "select a command from a menu". Reflexes don't matter at all.
For the record though I will say this: game genres are sketchy at best, and 'RPG' is probably one of the worst and most vague of the lot. I tend to just lump them in as 'RPG' and then describe particular themes and mechanics, rather than trying to place it in a sub-genre. You'll lose years of your life trying to figure out, for instance, why so many people put Final Fantasy and Valkyria Chronicles in the same genre.
First Person Shooters beg to differ.Quote:
Originally Posted by JibrilThat doesn't make any sense. Combat genre isn't dictated by the method the game uses to present the combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by metagloria
I'm not an expert or anything. I usually defined RPG games as being a combat system based on dice rolls or timed/turn-based combat. Whilst Action RPGs were derivative of any other RPG, but with combat roots inspired by Action-Adventure games? As in real time, but with hit points?
The use of databases, basically, to store numerical information relating to your character(s) properties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Egami
I don't believe any video game calling itself an RPG is reflective of actual old-school RPGs. You don't have enough control over the storytelling to dictate the development of your character, since video games are pre-built so you're always travelling a linear path through the barriers of game developers. I used to joke that if your levels were called 'missions', then it's an action game. If they're called 'quests', its an RPG! =P
RPG elements to me is when your character's ability to succeed at a given task increases without requiring the player to get better at controlling the action that performs this task.
Your character gets better at intimidating others. It's not you as the player who is performing actions in a way that is more intimidating to the target.
Your character gets better at aiming a gun, it's not you who's gotten steadier on your mouse arm.
Your character is swinging the sword harder, it is not you who is pressing the button harder.
RPG elements.
When I say "your character", this doesn't have to be a literal character. Any permanent extention (one that you can't lose) of the object you are controlling counts. If you're in an action RPG where you have guns, can upgrade the stats of these guns, and can't lose the guns, then the upgrading of these guns is also an RPG element.
I agree with collision detection, although I will extend that slightly.
Target detection: FFVII-style.
Range detection: FFXII-style. In other words, so long as you are within range (ie, collision range), it doesn't matter what way you are facing or direction you are moving, it WILL hit the target. This also works to some extent for the likes of FFXIV. Essentially the way that you can add field movement to a non-action RPG, much like FFXII does.
Collision detection: Collision detection and targeting. Think Skyrim. Far less focused on targeting, far more focused on "did the sword hit the enemy". Most WRPGs fit into this. I don't think any FF fits into this, although I could be wrong.
No FF except probably FF15 fits into the last of those.
Some of the spinoffs would, like Crisis Core.
None of those actually exist.
I doubt there are any agreed upon definitions. I'd tend to say that it's an action RPG if it relies more on skill than strategy or statistics. So for example, in something like Mount and Blade you can technically kill an army of 100 men with your character at Level 1, even though it is a game where leveling up is important.
Whereas something like a Tales game, which does have realtime combat, is much more reliant on statistics. If you fought the final boss at level1, no amount of skill could save you from being instantly decimated.
Enchanted Arms (turn based), Magna Carta 2(action rpg),
Star Ocean till the end of time (action rpg), lost odyssey (turn based)
I find the majority of action RPG's boring, which is why I'm pessimistic about FFXV. Give me classic RPG any day.
Action RPG's can more exciting than turn-based classic RPG's, but classic RPG's allow for the necessity of strategy more so than the run-and-gun. They are also generally less stress-inducing, so both are on pretty equal levels for me. Ultimately, it really depends on the game. While I like games like Borderlands it always feels a bit impersonal. Action RPGs tend to lack that more personal element that you feel when you're playing a character in third person.
What about Deus Ex? It's a pretty exciting action rpg. And I believe on one of my topics I was debating if me and my team should make our game an action rpg with some turn based rules or pure turn based with action point usage.