Shut down the Hero Factory!

WoW is a massively multiplayer online paper doll simulator/massively multiplayer action game.

The idea that it has any roleplaying elements whatsoever is laughable.



Ignoring the fact that I don't know what Wizadry is, a lot of the choice in older RPGs came from things like "Race", "Class", and "Alignment".

RPGs have been dramatically simplifying since the D&D / textbased RPG days...
Edited by Dokarm on 8/7/2012 3:27 PM PDT
Reply Quote
85 Night Elf Druid
1890
08/07/2012 03:21 PMPosted by Lothor
Except you can't have shades of grey if you want a choice to be a hero or not. Can't have it both ways Drailen. Warcraft isn't just about Shades of Grey. They may like it but it's more then that.


Actually you can.

As a character, you can make a choice you think is wholly good just to find out there are negative consequences for it.

For example(Dragon Age: Origins Dwarf spoilers), when you enter the Dwarven city in DA:O you are tasked with supporting one of two potential Kings for the throne. One is the son and heir of the throne(who everyone knows killed his father), and the other is an honorable lord who doesn't want the crown but does want to honor the king, who was a good friend of his.

However if you choose the honorable noble you find out in the end credits that he was a terrible king. He had no passion or ambition, and no desire to change anything(even though the Dwarves had a terrible caste system) and he eventually died of illness. Where as if you chose the son and heir as the King, his pragmatism and ambition brought a new "golden age" for his people as he abolished the caste system and increased relations with the humans.

"Grey area" simply means things are complicated. It doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that good and bad decisions don't exist.
Edited by Drailen on 8/7/2012 3:27 PM PDT
Reply Quote
97 Human Paladin
4980
Well no. I think Pan's Labyrinth is just a great example of a story that relies on visual and sound to create a psychological effect, rather than just tell you what is happening(Like Warcraft does).

I could have also used the Metroid Prime series, or Zelda


Well, I see your point there; no denying that. But you used it as an example of something you'd like instead, which, as I go on to try and say, we just won't get.

Gameplay first is a fine motto for Blizzard to have. It's the idea that they think "Gameplay" and "Story" have to fight each other to co-exist that seems a little weird.

Also, Samwise just liked drawing Panda's. They weren't expecting fans to actually like the idea when they put it up as an April Fools joke. The idea snowballed--so it's not fair to just say that Blizzard is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on Pandaren to appeal to one employee's child.


Well, I heard the story wrong then; my bad there. <_<

Gameplay and story do have to fight for importance when the Game Development and Creative Development are two utterly seperate departments - Omacron can chime in and correct me if he wants - and with the Game Development team now being full of new people who don't know all the old-timers, things might be a bit confusing. Plus, there's also deadlines they have to meet and they have to keep in mind all the people on General Forums just slamming their heads on the keyboard who are more frustrated over lack of content than what our complaints are who, to be fair, are the majority.
But I agree with a stance you held a long while back, that, if WoW did have a cohesive and engaging narrative, more people would want to pay attention to it.

Funny thing: People tend to get this idea that just because LoTR had a pretty straight-forward idea of "Good vs Evil" that that is what it was all about. It's like they forget that the books were full of many of the aspects that make for an amazing story. It wasn't just about the Battle for Helms Deep or convincing the Undead Guys to fight for Aragorn. It was about mortal vulnerability, resisting temptation, and a whole plethora of other great themes.

Themes that could all fit into Warcraft, if Blizzard had the inclination to do them well.


I didn't say it was just about "Good vs. Evil" at all, did I? I said it was about how the sufferings of one person could make a difference no matter how futile or small it seemed. Of course, your other statements are completely valid literarly analyzations(SP?).

Furthermore, I hope you realize the distance we feel from the story now is because people kept equating the Lich King and the constant presence of other title villains as being too "Comic Book-ish", which is why we now know next to nothing about what goes on unless we spend $20+ on a book that is really just truck-loads of exposition with some nice artwork in the middle.

You know I hear this a lot but I don't think anyone has actually given me a real source for it.

Regardless, Warcraft didn't really become what it was until Chris Metzen got on board in WCII.


I'll find it for you when I'm not strapped for time; like now. I won't argue with your second sentence.

08/07/2012 03:15 PMPosted by Drailen
This is where you're wrong. Blizzard has said time and time again that they prefer the "Shades of Grey" approach to Warcraft. Which is something I am behind them on.


This whole concept, however, is flawed for the same reasons you don't like lack of choice; forcing my character to do things they simply don't want to do or wouldn't do, was there any choice at all. They can color the other characters and factions with ridiculous amounts of grey to sell their political ideals IRL all they want; don't get any of it on my character, though; he has a choice and I've yet to see ICly where exactly my character is the exclusive property of their faction and we only do what we're told because we have to. I still have a "Decline" button on my quest text, last time I checked, and I don't get hurt for pressing it.

That's the problem. The only choice in the game is either you do the quests or you don't. That's all.


Fair enough.

In Final Fantasy XI, I may have been a healer but my good friend was a fisherman. He knew how to heal too, yeah, but mostly he just fished because there was an entire meta-game behind it.

I also knew a guy who was an ordained Knight--a Paladin. But his wife was a miner and all she would do when she played was don her mining outfit and traverse various mines, protecting innocent wanderers who travelled too deeply. It didn't have as much depth as fishing, no, but she sold the ores and made a lot of money off it--which was a huge part of playing Final Fantasy XI, because the economy was everything.

Good fantasy by no means has to be about heroes doing heroic things. It can just be about the common person who makes a living in a fantastical world. It's not boring by any means, because there's gameplay to it as well as danger...and reward.

People vastly under-rate games like Harvest Moon, but hey, look at Farmville. People love this kind of simple stuff.


I don't see what any of this has to do with my challange you quoted, although you're right; another example is Minecraft.

Aside from the fact that that is just role playing, it's also BORING role playing.

The only motivation you need in an RPG to do a dungeon is that it has loot and threats. It doesn't matter where your morality lies. It has stuff you want to take and things that need to die. Obstacles.

The GAMEPLAY can be much more engaging here, especially in regards to questing.


I don't remember being told by a quest-giver, ever, what my character's motivation was for doing anything and then being forced to accept that as canon.
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
13525
You can definitely have shades of moral gray while having your character be a hero. Heroes do not have to be "white". Look at Batman.


-.- I know that Omacron you again completely missed the point.

Except that's boring and doesn't keep up with the times.


Mhm

This isn't "back in the day". This is now. WoW needs to catch up.


Not sure how you'll win this battle.

Then don't give players major choices like "Kill Illidan or let him live". Give them simple choices, like "Get the Valkyr to kill and raise that minor NPC character(who has no bearing on the overall story) as a Forsaken" or "Let him live and see how he affects the quest series later on".

Or they could do the simple thing and give us a major choice, and then having that choice be inconsequential later on. For example, let the minor NPC live but then have Sylvanas swoop down and kill him later.


Pretty much this. I agree.

ignoring the fact that I don't know what Wizadry is, a lot of the choice in older RPGs came from things like "Race", "Class", and "Alignment".

We have two out of three of those things, except they have no bearing on us after the starting areas. It's totally cool for a blue alien Paladin to be hanging out with a rocking werewolf warlock outside the Stormwind Orphanage.


Heh....I'd like more flavor characters inside the capital cities. They do this in MoP but adding more makes it feel more immersive and I like that. :)

So are the Final Fantasy games also not RPGs? Because I think you'd be really hard-pressed to argue that.


Yeah I don't agree with him either. WoW is a RPG either way. So are the Final Fantasy ones. RPG's may have been limitead for awhile but as time goes by they get more and more advanced and fun. KOTR is where they get something right.
Reply Quote
85 Night Elf Druid
1890
08/07/2012 03:23 PMPosted by Vegdrasil
WoW is not an RPG. An RPG involves choices and freedom in terms of the direction you can take the story. Not even "Horde" or "Alliance" is a legitimate choice - the story plays out the same way, just from a different perspective.
So are the Final Fantasy games also not RPGs? Because I think you'd be really hard-pressed to argue that.


Funny thing: After Final Fantasy 13 came out one of the big guys at Bioware said to the press that he "doesn't know" what Final Fantasy 13 is, but it's "not an RPG".

The definition of what constitutes an "RPG" is so varied that not even the professionals and nail it down because RPG creators and fans tend to be very stuck up.
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
13525
08/07/2012 03:29 PMPosted by Drailen
So are the Final Fantasy games also not RPGs? Because I think you'd be really hard-pressed to argue that.


Funny thing: After Final Fantasy 13 came out one of the big guys at Bioware said to the press that he "doesn't know" what Final Fantasy 13 is, but it's "not an RPG".

The definition of what constitutes an "RPG" is so varied that not even the professionals and nail it down because RPG creators and fans tend to be very stuck up.


I've played a lot of RPGs, not all of them but a lot. Really this has turned into a debate about rpgs now...sad really.
Reply Quote
87 Human Paladin
12430
WoW is a massively multiplayer online paper doll simulator/massively multiplayer action game.

The idea that it has any roleplaying elements whatsoever is laughable.


Yeah, keep telling yourself that whereas none of us here are all that convinced.
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
13525
WoW is a massively multiplayer online paper doll simulator/massively multiplayer action game.

The idea that it has any roleplaying elements whatsoever is laughable.


Yeah, keep telling yourself that whereas none of us here are all that convinced.


I'm starting to question his posts now. /shrug

WoW is a RPG, accept it or don't. It's your choice.
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Druid
15320
08/07/2012 03:22 PMPosted by Drailen
Except that's boring and doesn't keep up with the times.

Plenty of people find battlegrounds and professions fun.

08/07/2012 03:22 PMPosted by Drailen
This isn't "back in the day". This is now. WoW needs to catch up.

It is catching up... just not in the way you want. Why do you think they're adding farming and pet taming minigames?

08/07/2012 03:22 PMPosted by Drailen
Then don't give players major choices like "Kill Illidan or let him live". Give them simple choices, like "Get the Valkyr to kill and raise that minor NPC character(who has no bearing on the overall story) as a Forsaken" or "Let him live and see how he affects the quest series later on".

Too many of those can be a problem too, a "death of a million cuts" kind of scenario. It's better to KISS- Keep It Simple, Stupid.

08/07/2012 03:22 PMPosted by Drailen
Or they could do the simple thing and give us a major choice, and then having that choice be inconsequential later on. For example, let the minor NPC live but then have Sylvanas swoop down and kill him later.

Giving a fake choice is far more dangerous than giving a real choice. Look at the outcry surrounding Mass Effect 3's ending, or the way Deus Ex: Human Revolution handled boss battles.

08/07/2012 03:22 PMPosted by Drailen
Ignoring the fact that I don't know what Wizadry is, a lot of the choice in older RPGs came from things like "Race", "Class", and "Alignment".

Wizardry is one of the founders of the video game RPG genre along with the Ultima series. It is a western developed game that found a lot of popularity in Japan and was a direct influence on what we consider to be "JRPGs" of the Final Fantasy/Dragon Warrior mold.
Reply Quote
WoW is a massively multiplayer online paper doll simulator/massively multiplayer action game.

The idea that it has any roleplaying elements whatsoever is laughable.


Yeah, keep telling yourself that whereas none of us here are all that convinced.


I don't have to reinforce something that obvious.

Go play Fallout (the original 2, not that garbage Bethesda put out) or Dungeons and Dragons and get back to me. I don't believe I can legitimately express how shallow of an RPG, if it is one at all, WoW actually is.

If you did that, I'm sure you would be much more convinced. I'm sure after playing "Uncharted: Drake's Fortune" and "Gears of War 2" WoW seems like an RPG. That's probably because you've never actually played an RPG before.

Hell, go play WoW on an RP server and see what those guys do. It's lightyears beyond the actual game itself. It serves better as a sandbox template as a vehicle for roleplaying just through providing a few disparate environments, character models, emotes, and equippable gear and a basic text function than the actual confines of the gameplay itself.
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
13525


Yeah, keep telling yourself that whereas none of us here are all that convinced.


I don't have to reinforce something that obvious.

Go play Fallout (the original 2, not that garbage Bethesda put out) or Dungeons and Dragons and get back to me. I don't believe I can legitimately express how shallow of an RPG, if it is one at all, WoW actually is.

If you did that, I'm sure you would be much more convinced. I'm sure after playing "Uncharted: Drake's Fortune" and "Gears of War 2" WoW seems like an RPG. That's probably because you've never actually played an RPG before.

Hell, go play WoW on an RP server and see what those guys do. It's lightyears beyond the actual game itself. It serves better as a sandbox template as a vehicle for roleplaying just through providing a few disparate environments, character models, emotes, and equippable gear and a basic text function than the actual confines of the gameplay itself.


IT IS STILL A RPG, WEATHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT. Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean it isn't

Too many of those can be a problem too, a "death of a million cuts" kind of scenario. It's better to KISS- Keep It Simple, Stupid.


Or it's just easier that way. I disagree, Blizzard can do better, I know they can. Just accepting everything is silly. I'm not trying to be a rebel here, I'm being serious.
Edited by Lothor on 8/7/2012 3:40 PM PDT
Reply Quote
How is it an RPG? By merit of your calling it an RPG? How about I call my eggplant parmesan an RPG? What is the purpose of language if it does not have useful definitions?

How do you even define an RPG? Just anything that says "RPG" under "genre" on IGN.com?

Are you capable of defending that statement, defining your terms, or reasoning independently about how a given object fits within a definition?
Reply Quote
87 Human Paladin
12430
I'm pretty sure it was explained a page ago, as well as the post that RPG's seem to be very subjective in genre definition.

So it really is just your opinion at this point.
Reply Quote
85 Night Elf Druid
1890
Arguing the definition of a genre is really, really stupid. Just ignore him.

08/07/2012 03:35 PMPosted by Omacron
Plenty of people find battlegrounds and professions fun.


Well yes, but those are separate bits of gameplay that have no(or little) bearing on the story. It'd be great if Blizzard has quests lead up to battlegrounds like they do with dungeons to add some meaning to the fights, but they don't.



08/07/2012 03:35 PMPosted by Omacron
It is catching up... just not in the way you want. Why do you think they're adding farming and pet taming minigames?


Those are good steps forward, yet Blizzard is still miles behind.

They did at least use the rudimentary "choice dialogue" in Cataclysm more than previous expansions. However they have yet to actually let any of those choices lead to a phasing mechanic--which would be too awesome for words.



08/07/2012 03:35 PMPosted by Omacron
Too many of those can be a problem too, a "death of a million cuts" kind of scenario. It's better to KISS- Keep It Simple, Stupid.


I disagree. It would just make the story personal to us. Going back to the minor NPC turning into a Forsaken example, they could just go to the effort of having that NPC appear as a Forsaken in future zones if the player let them die and be raised.

Extra effort on Blizzard's part? Sure. But a meaningful thing to do.



08/07/2012 03:35 PMPosted by Omacron
Giving a fake choice is far more dangerous than giving a real choice. Look at the outcry surrounding Mass Effect 3's ending, or the way Deus Ex: Human Revolution handled boss battles.


I can't do that because I haven't beat ME3 yet and I don't want it spoiled for me, spoiler-man ._.
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
13525
I'm pretty sure it was explained a page ago, as well as the post that RPG's seem to be very subjective in genre definition.

So it really is just your opinion at this point.


There's a definition to a moderate degree. Not clear cut but moderately it is. And I wasn't even thinking of IGN, do you have an agenda against them Dok?
Reply Quote

You're using an excessively narrow definition of RPG which does the genre- arguably the most expansive genre in gaming- a disservice.


I don't see how using a certain definition does anything a disservice. What if I were to say, "you are using an excessively broad/vague" definition. What would that even mean?

I don't see why you're baiting me into a semantics argument in the first place.

I don't care what definition of the word "RPG" you use, so long as you're consistent, and neither should you care what definition of the word "RPG" I use. Semantics arguments are pointless and roundabout.

The real essence of my comment is simply that WoW does not give a wide range of choice in terms of dialogue, story direction, or latitude in terms of how you can roleplay your character. You can't have the freedom of choice that let's you, say, sneak through Icecrown Citadel and sabotauge it, unless the quests specifically allow you to do that. You don't have the option to avoid encounters through dialogue. You don't have the option to save or kill innocents, unless it's within the confines of the on-rails quest text that the lore writers designed. I can't choose whether I want to side with Garrosh Hellscream or be involved in a subversive coup'detat against him.

And so the larger point I'm making is simply that WoW fails miserably on those aspects. I can play a generic combat simulator anywhere - they're called action games. Even Call of Doody now has "perks" that I can customize and various loadouts that I can equip myself and stat modifiers that I can assign. What makes Call of Doody an FPS and WoW an RPG? I ask that you define your terms, whatever the definition may be, and then be consistent about their usage. I also ask that you don't engage me in meaningless arguments about which definition is "better." Definitions are subjective, and as long as you don't equivocate, it doesn't matter what definition you're using. The whole point of a definition is so that people can understand you, so why not define your terms in a clear and concise manner -first- before arguing about which definition would be better?
Reply Quote
85 Night Elf Druid
1890
Zelda is an RPG.

I went there.
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
13525
Again just because the RPG aspects are lower doesn't mean it IS NOT a RPG.

Zelda is an RPG.

I went there.


OH NO YOU DIDNT!
Edited by Lothor on 8/7/2012 3:55 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Zelda is an RPG.

I went there.


What is an RPG?
Reply Quote
100 Draenei Paladin
13790
Zelda is an RPG.

I went there.


What is an RPG?


Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs, as well as computer RPGs or CRPGs) are a video game genre where the player controls the actions of a protagonist as this character lives immersed in a fictional world
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]