Talk:Action roleplaying game

This article has been moved from "Action-RPG".

Action Role-Playing game???

<SSPecteR> I strongly disagree with the definition here. Games like Diablo, Dungeon Siege etc... dont have MANY RPG elements, and are not considered by many (me included) as RPG. For me, the so-called Action RPGs only focus in combat and arcade style. It have as many role as any other computer game genre, so what's the point of calling it Role Playing game???

Another argument against it is that most recent Computer RPGs have arcade-styled combat. From the definition i've saw here would place arcade games as Diablo and Dungeon Siege as the same style of Morrowind and Ultima 9, for example.

I believe the perfect term to these type of games are 'Hack-and-slash game.

Sadly the article is full of POV so ill have to put on it a counter POV to raise dispute and hope someday it will be argued and fixed. ♠ 2006-06-28, 19:37 (UTC)

Well if you want to classify Diablo as hack-and-slash that's fine, but I don't think its fair to equate all action-RPGs with hack-and-slash games. --Buuneko 02:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

<SSPecteR> Then I really think it should be discussed better here. The definition in the article just plain suck. Quote: An Action-RPG, or action role-playing game is a type of computer role-playing game which requires quick action or reflexes from the player. These games are sometimes also categorized as action-adventure games. It is describing almost all RPGs and GTA-style games out there. This game classification is very insane, placing Diablo as same style as Final Fantasy, Morrowind, Worlds of Warcraft, Chrono Cross, Ultima Underworld, and Ultima 8/9. No offense but that smells like crap. Also, I REALLY don't remember seeing this classification in any game magazine out there. At least this page need some reference and a better definition. ♠ 2006-07-02, 07:19 (UTC)

Games like your Elder Scrolls, the Gothic series, ect, I have always thought of as first person rpgs. While your Diablos are more action rpg. --Zerocyde 12:35, 09 November 2006 (UTC)

They are all RPGs. The reason these things will never have a definition is because games lend themselves to define little sub cultures people create for themselves. For example, people who play Fallout want to make themselves superior than people that play "simple" games like the so called Diablo clones. Its stupid, it has to end, and someone must start using some friggin logic to start tackling the issue. The only thing I would contribute is that all these games, like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Dungeon Siege, any Dungeons and Dragons game, KOTOR...all these games are RPGs. They have different game designs, but that doesn't make em less RPG. The point of the RPG is to play a role. For me, that basically means a gameplay experience thats mainly focused on simulating learning, towards achieving the goal of defeating the game, or the quests or whatever (some games dont have an ending per se). Every game that has a gameplay style that somehow translates the board game format of the true original RPGs, the PnP board games, then thats RPG for me. It doesnt matter if you fight more, or interact more...it doesn't matter. Those are accidents, secondary attributes. Not the essence of the thing. In all these games, you have to think about what you are doing. Not even Oblivion is "action", as some people state. You cant play this game like you play MK Shaolin Monks or God of War. So what if you press a button to block and have to use your reflexes? Bloking all the time is not a smart decision either, cuz you ALWAYS have to thing of a strategy according to what you have in hand, and of course, the attributes, which are the ones that simulate the whole learning thing. Even the japanese RPGs do this, simulating the PnPs. Thats my take on it Mailrobot 01:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of RPGs isn't to "play a role", as one does that in all games. Game genres aren't defined by things like "playing a role" or story or what type of story they have, but rather what type of gameplay they have and what is the primary focus of that gameplay. The real defining gameplay element that separates RPGs from the other games is the strong focus on character creation. In RPGs, this means focusing on stat building. Now, some RPGs don't have actual "creation" of characters (for example, many JRPGs). But they do have strong focus on building stats (and therefore "building up" characters) in some manner. As such, any game with that element as a strong focus (not a side focus) is an RPG.

Action RPGs are defined by that focus on stat building going hand in hand with a real time combat system that requires reflex action based purely on player motor skills. As such ANY game that has a STRONG focus on the RPG element of stat building combined with Action gameplay is an Action RPG. Games that have some RPG elements that are not truly a focus at all (like in GTA: San Andreas, where the character stat attributes is more of a side element that is not in any way a focus of the game) are most likely action/adventure games.

Again, any game with a strong primary focus on building characters through stats, levels, and whatnot that combines that with strong reflex action gameplay is an Action RPG.

Therealspiffyone (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

all these arguments are flawed. Any game can be classified by RPG with this "role argument." Tom clancy games and gta games can be considered rpg under this definition. Games that allow choices and CHARACTER DEVELOPMENTS are roleplaying games. This game is boringly linear and there is no development. I am always "the necromancer." When I say character development I mean my character's personality develops. I can be any class in this game and my personality is still "I don't talk, I don't make choices, and I kill things. Oh, and I hunt for item sets." Comparing the pathetic "stat increases" and "ability increases" to character development is like comparing character development to new rims on a car. In baldur's gate, you talk with the npc's and the story is driven by you and not by you following some demon schmuck. YOU develop as you uncover your godhood and how you define yourself by what actions you take. Same thing with fallout. Now I concede, even these are limited compared to full blown roleplaying which can only be accomplished on tabletop. People seem to stress that diablo only on the development of stats. But any actual roleplayer will tell you that the "mechanics" of the system do not define it, its the interactivity. Even Gary Gygax says that almost no pc game is a roleplaying game, which is a harsh but accurate statement. Games like BG and fallout come close and I consider them roleplaying games in terms of the focus of the game, that being character and role development. Mechanics of a game are only there because there is no better way to settle actions that in real life are very random and based on factors that can not be defined exactly. Of course a person's strength can not be define as exactly 17 or 18, but for roleplayers this is the best we got. But people who play diablo, who have never played an actual roleplaying game in their life, try to use this very thing that actual roleplayers hold as a necessary evil.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 

Early History in Japan

I think that there are some lack of notable games. "The Tower of Druaga" and "Hydlide" are placed one of the first games as action-RPG genre in Japan. Especially Hydlide was very popular and many influences "Zelda I" and "Ys". Also, "Dragon Buster" is considered early side-scrolling RPG(or RPG-like). In japanese historical context, although "Zelda II" had considerable degree of completion, it was not the dramatically new game. 210.149.120.123 11:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Buster is pretty much a straightforward linear action game, it's more of a pre-Castlevania, really.

I wanted to add that Castlevania II - which was originally released in 1987 for the Famicom Disk System - also had an impact, if not so much in Japan then certainly over here. I'm not going to bodge it into the article quite yet; thoughts are requested. --Edwin Herdman 04:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Zelda mentions

The article should be modified to be fair and balanced, although to not even imply that it is true that it is an Action/RPG. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states that Zelda is not an action RPG, but that the games features had a strong influence upon the genre. SharkD 23:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Forummers often call Zelda titles action RPGs, or even just RPGs. Even if it's erroneous, the fact that people make this error makes it something to mention. The whole article needs a lot more references, true, but I'd say this is one claim that can definitely be referenced. I seem to recall there being an article along these lines on RPG Dot (or RPGamer?) and that's probably the most reliable source to be found for this error. Garrett^Talk 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Synonymous term

Some mention of the term hack and slash should be made, as it's nearly synonymous with Action RPG. SharkD 04:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

"However, RPGs that use this style of combat system but give equal focus to non-combat elements such as non-player character interaction and character development (such as The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion) are instead referred to as computer role-playing games."

What about Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, which markets itself as an action RPG, yet gives equal focus to non-combat skills? SharkD 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In the industry, "action RPG" seems to refer primarily or even solely to the use of a real-time combat system. To RPG players, however, "action RPG" typically equates to a Diablo-esque focus. Of course then the question has to be whose naming we go with, the one given by the company or the one indicated by the traditions of the RPG genres. Still, that's something worth a mention just like Zelda games not being RPGs. Garrett^Talk 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I copied what you said, word for word. How does it look? SharkD 12:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it again. It just didn't sound right for some reason. Plus, I feel bad adding unsourced statements. SharkD 12:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with what Garret stated as far as what RPG players feel is that there are some RPG players who go by the definition he attributes to the industry. That is, an Action RPG being an RPG with a real time combat system, one focused on action reflex gameplay. Still, I guess it's up to the interpretation of the individual, as game genres do not have hard and fast definitions (or rather the subgenres don't). That's what these wiki articles are about: trying to come up with hard and fast definitions.Therealspiffyone (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Maybe a mention of the differing opinions should be made in the article. SharkD (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So-called "FPS/RPGs" as Action RPGs?

As some know, there are games that are placed in the "FPS" type of Action>shooter genre that have a strong focus on RPG level/stat building. Deus Ex and System Shock 1 and 2 comes to mind. As Action RPGs are RPG games with real-time action reflex combat systems, wouldn't a game that combines FPS gameplay (an action gameplay convention, focusing on reflex shooting combat) with a strong focus on character building/creation (like the aforementioned games) be an Action RPG?

I would think so. Apparently Deus Ex and System Shock 1 and 2 were (and are) labeled as RPGs by their developers, despite being considered FPS by some gamers. In fact, aren't they both? Some gamers (and pro reviewers) label them as "FPS/RPG"...but "FPS" isn't really a genre unto itself, but rather a type of game in the Shooter genre which itself is a type of game in the Action genre. As such is the case, and Shooters are types of Action games, it would seem that calling such games Action RPGs is entirely within the definition of the Action RPG genre. Therealspiffyone (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you; however, this does not reconcile the fact that there is a difference in interpretation of the term. Simply changing the definition from one to another meaning wouldn't be prudent, in my opinion. SharkD (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)