Nah, but thanks; I've had EB0 for a while. But it plays reeeaaally sloooowly so I never got anywhere further than a fight with a lamp in your room, lol.

You can interpret the classifications your own way. ;P

Then I guess in your eyes just about any turn-based tactics or tactical simulation game should be classified as an RPG?

isukun

You can interpret the classifications your own way. ;P

Then I guess in your eyes just about any turn-based tactics or tactical simulation game should be classified as an RPG?

Sure. It's my prerogative, isn't it?

Senshuu
Nah, but thanks; I've had EB0 for a while. But it plays reeeaaally sloooowly so I never got anywhere further than a fight with a lamp in your room, lol.

Mine plays really good, maybe you got a broken ROM. That has happened to me before and I just got a new one and played like a charm.

I guess the question is, when does a game Stop being an RPG? Or for that matter, when does it start? Kingdom Hearts is largely considered an RPG; an "action-RPG" to be more precise. But these days, what action game doesn't have strong RPG elements? Even seemingly simple games like Devil May Cry still have a rudimentary equipment and skill-leveling that would normally be considered RPG elements. The Castlevania series has pretty much given up on complex platforming in favor of strong RPG elements ever since Symphony. Even games that don't have clear "level" systems still have RPG elements. If you think that getting four heart pieces in Zelda isn't akin to gaining a level you're fooling yourself.

Largely, RPGs are going the way of the point-and-click adventure games: their elements with the widest appeal are being integrated into other genres. Any trade-sequence in an action game you've played is essentially a point and click adventure without the pointing and clicking. For that matter, many of these tactics games are just RPGs with a sort of chess element added. If you've got individual units that become more powerful through experience of some kind, I'd say it's safe to classify it as an RPG. Perhaps with some kind of qualifier, such as "tactical-RPG" or "Rhythm-RPG", etc. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that any game with a significant portion of the action dependant on something other than the players' skill (how much they've leveled up a weapon, which items they have equipped, etc.) is at risk of being considered a form of RPG. Ratchett and Clank is practically a Platform-Shooter-RPG. The RPG element of a given game may be its least obvious point, but I feel that it's still enough to include the term RPG when discussing it.

Inkmonkey
I guess the question is, when does a game Stop being an RPG? Or for that matter, when does it start? Kingdom Hearts is largely considered an RPG; an "action-RPG" to be more precise. But these days, what action game doesn't have strong RPG elements? Even seemingly simple games like Devil May Cry still have a rudimentary equipment and skill-leveling that would normally be considered RPG elements. The Castlevania series has pretty much given up on complex platforming in favor of strong RPG elements ever since Symphony. Even games that don't have clear "level" systems still have RPG elements. If you think that getting four heart pieces in Zelda isn't akin to gaining a level you're fooling yourself.

Largely, RPGs are going the way of the point-and-click adventure games: their elements with the widest appeal are being integrated into other genres. Any trade-sequence in an action game you've played is essentially a point and click adventure without the pointing and clicking. For that matter, many of these tactics games are just RPGs with a sort of chess element added. If you've got individual units that become more powerful through experience of some kind, I'd say it's safe to classify it as an RPG. Perhaps with some kind of qualifier, such as "tactical-RPG" or "Rhythm-RPG", etc. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that any game with a significant portion of the action dependant on something other than the players' skill (how much they've leveled up a weapon, which items they have equipped, etc.) is at risk of being considered a form of RPG. Ratchett and Clank is practically a Platform-Shooter-RPG. The RPG element of a given game may be its least obvious point, but I feel that it's still enough to include the term RPG when discussing it.

I definitely agree with that theory. Both points mirror my logic to classifying a game as an RPG. After all these generations of games, there have been new genres in sub genres which can lead to muli title classification of games.

If you think that getting four heart pieces in Zelda isn't akin to gaining a level you're fooling yourself.

Actually, it really isn't. The experience/leveling system simply does not exist in Zelda. The game is largely based on item collection and problem solving, which is why it tends to be classified as an adventure game. Link can kill as many Moblins as he wants and never see any improvement. As an action game, the minor leveling elements in the game are optional, whereas in most RPGs, leveling is a necessity for progression in the game.

For that matter, many of these tactics games are just RPGs with a sort of chess element added. If you've got individual units that become more powerful through experience of some kind, I'd say it's safe to classify it as an RPG.

The problem though is that many genres have elements that carry over to other genres. An experience and leveling system does not necessarily designate something as an RPG. There are other elements there that differentiate the genre from other genres. In fact, the tactics genre has had the experience and leveling from the start. It is in and of itself a sub-genre of the strategy genre characterized by smaller teams of individuals and character building.

The problem I have with classifying Valkyria Chronicles as an RPG is that the game really doesn't have that many RPG elements to it. Your unit as a whole gains experience which is then used to level up the overall classes. Individual units DON'T gain experience and level up. You can use money to upgrade weapons and armor, but these upgrades carry over to all characters within that class. This is all more like the leveling systems present in strategy games than in RPGs.

Then the game play is basically a revamped version of what they had in the later Sakura Taisen series games, except now you are limited to one attack per movement phase instead of just comboing through until your movement bar ran out and enemies would fire at you occasionally if they had line of sight. Nothing in the combat system is really reminiscent of the RPG genre. If anything, it is more a mix of tactical and action. Sakura Taisen was NEVER classified as an RPG, nor was its turn-based predecessor which actually had more in common with Final Fantasy Tactics than with Valkyria Chronicles (leveling characters, world map, etc).

Then you have the problem that the game really has no exploration elements or even a world map. You just play through the missions in order like other tactics games. There are some scenes that pop up on the side, but beyond that the game is purely linear. On your first play through, you can't even replay story missions for experience, just a handful of optional generic skirmish missions.

The game really does borrow more heavily from popular strategy games than it does from RPGs and sticks pretty closely to the traditional definition of "tactics" and may even lean more towards the strategy side due to the more limited experience and leveling system. The only thing that really points to this being an RPG is the claim from Sega that it is an RPG, but how much can we trust such a claim when the company also labels it as an MMO? And I'm sure even YOU, ShinuZero, couldn't seriously agree with that claim.

isukun
The problem I have with classifying Valkyria Chronicles as an RPG is that the game really doesn't have that many RPG elements to it. Your unit as a whole gains experience which is then used to level up the overall classes. Individual units DON'T gain experience and level up. You can use money to upgrade weapons and armor, but these upgrades carry over to all characters within that class. This is all more like the leveling systems present in strategy games than in RPGs.

Fine, so it's a strategy-RPG. There's still experience, there's still levels, there's still equipment. It just treats whole classes the way other games treat individual units. Big whoop.

Look, I'm not saying that this sort of thing is an RPG and that's it. I'm just saying that there are things that have enough RPG elements in them to include the term RPG in their description.

There's still experience, there's still levels, there's still equipment. It just treats whole classes the way other games treat individual units.

Research/training/upgrades for classes has been a pretty common element in strategy games since the days when they were primarily played on pieces of cardboard, so I don't really see this as overwhelming evidence that the game deserves to be called an RPG. It especially doesn't help that no tactical or strategic RPG uses that system, but many tactics and strategy games that AREN'T RPGs do.

I think the problem here is that you are just assuming that the experience and leveling system is a core feature of the RPG genre that sets it apart from everything else, when it really isn't.

grandia i loved that game plot is amazing and thrilling, the characters are vivid and deep,the graphic was awesome at the time, the combat system is improved version of final fantasy with the time gouge, the atmosphere is just breath taking specially when u cross that big wall,character development was made rly well as u learn the spells u use the most and u combine 2 elements to get third, it has a great soundtrack aswell...voice acting sux a bit though..This was one of the first rpgs i played as a kid.



though i did like dark cloud 2 untill i skiped a head and found out the hero was a paradox i lost interest affer that and there still rpgs its only that here hieing under other games also i though and rpg was more story lead then game play

voice acting sux a bit though.

Which was really unfortunate. The Japanese version had outstanding voice acting with a lot of prominent voice actors from the time.

isukun

There's still experience, there's still levels, there's still equipment. It just treats whole classes the way other games treat individual units.

Research/training/upgrades for classes has been a pretty common element in strategy games since the days when they were primarily played on pieces of cardboard, so I don't really see this as overwhelming evidence that the game deserves to be called an RPG. It especially doesn't help that no tactical or strategic RPG uses that system, but many tactics and strategy games that AREN'T RPGs do.

I think the problem here is that you are just assuming that the experience and leveling system is a core feature of the RPG genre that sets it apart from everything else, when it really isn't.

I'm going to go to the only semi-legitimate source I have on this subject, and quote directly from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia
Typically, gameplay centers around one or more avatars, with quantized characteristics that evolve over the course of the game, and take the place of the gamer's own skill in determining the outcome of the actions taken by the player. These attributes are traditionally displayed to the player on a status screen as a numeric value, instead of a simpler abstract graphical representation, such as the bars and meters often favored by video games in general. Another common element in RPGs is a well-developed fictional setting.

...

Gameplay elements strongly associated with this genre, such as statistical character development, have been widely adapted to other video game genres. For example, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, an action game, uses resource statistics (abbreviated as "stats") to define a wide range of attributes including stamina, weapon proficiency, driving, lung capacity, and muscle tone, and uses numerous cutscenes and quests to advance the story. Warcraft III, a real-time strategy game, features heroes that can complete quests, obtain new equipment, and "learn" new abilities as they advance in level.

And also, a brief summary of the gameplay elements in Valkyria Chronicles...

Wikipedia
Each character in the game fulfills a specific role — for instance, Alicia is a mid-range rifle-toting scout, while Welkin is a tank commander. There are also a host of other roles including assault infantry, medics, Lancers which are the anti-tank specialists, scouts, snipers, and engineers. These various units form a rock-paper-scissors dynamic of strength and weakness. The foot soldiers (Scout, Shocktropper, and Sniper) are effective against slower anti-tank units; anti-tank units can kill tanks with a well-aimed shot, and tanks are generally devastating against infantry, whose anti-personnel weapons are unable to inflict any significant frontal damage. By gaining experience and completing missions, the player's army and materiel can be upgraded. Soldiers receive improved weapons and equipment; vehicles can be outfitted with better armor and armaments; and friendly forces are expanded.

Close enough for me to include the term RPG when describing the game. You complain about how RPGs are stagnating and nothing interesting is being done with them, but it looks to me like when someone does make a "different" RPG, you just refuse recognize it as one.

Anyway, I think I've made my point by now. I know the futility of expecting you to listen to anyone when you've already made your decision about a subject, so I'll just leave this at that.

You complain about how RPGs are stagnating and nothing interesting is being done with them, but it looks to me like when someone does make a "different" RPG, you just refuse recognize it as one.

There is a pretty big difference between actually innovating within a genre and simply applying a different label to an existing genre to get a bit of publicity. Valkyria Chronicles is a case of the latter. It does a fairly good job of freshening up the tactics genre, but has nothing in it that makes it an RPG.

In fact, the wikipedia entry you've posted largely doesn't apply to Valkyria Chronicles. Most of your team is chosen from a roster of generic characters who don't play into the storyline at all. You have a class-based system, and while the classes level up if you decide to train them, the outcome of actions is still highly dependent on the player's skill at the game and not on the upgrades or training they have chosen to undertake. Classes have very specialized uses in combat. The gameplay is based much more on positioning and effectively using your classes than it is about leveling.

And while VC has a fictional setting, that can be said of just about any game. What generally sets RPGs apart is that the player is the driving force behind the storyline in the game. Games can be linear or open, but game progression is generally determined by the choices made by the player. That is not the case in VC where game progression is simply based on which stages you've beaten. You beat a stage, you get some cutscenes, rinse, repeat. Your setting is established almost exclusively through cut scenes and I don't see too many people calling movies RPGs just because they have a fictional setting.

You may want to actually try PLAYING the game rather than just going to wikipedia, I can already see a few errors just in the bit you've quoted and the wording can be a bit misleading if you're EXPECTING the game to play like an "RPG".

It is also interesting to consider that the stat-based combat present in modern day RPGs is borrowed from the much older strategy games genre, so it isn't a very good feature to use as evidence of "RPG elements" since it is already an element that was present in the strategy genre long before RPGs even existed. It's like saying "hey, that strategy game has strategy game elements, it must be an RPG". You're going to need to find something else that sets it apart, because that element doesn't really set it apart from the other games in its actual genre.

Fallout 2.

No explanation needed.