IronicallyTwisted
Banned
In most RPG's (especially JRPG's), lower skill can be offset by a larger time investment. This isn't true in other genres, in which if you suck, you die.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do RPGs take skill?
- Thread starter Suburban Cowboy
- Start date
- Status
Night_Trekker
Member
Yes, they do. It's not twitch gaming, but it does take skill to play them. Good RPGs, at least.
IronicallyTwisted said:
Yeah, and I think that's great. Gives a challenging game for hardcore gamers that's adjustable to lower levels of challenge for mainstream appeal.
Android18a said:
I'm guessing you don't play the more difficult rpgs? I mean I would not describe SMT3 before you get anti-death spells as being able to "play without getting annoyed".
Anytime I die and lose 30 mins or more in an rpg/s-rpg/strategy game I am usually "annoyed".
etiolate said:
Well, okay, yes, but that's a limitation of these games being purely single player experiences. There is a limit to how complex they can make the AI for any single boss without hampering every other encounter in the game.
That being said, more action oriented games are exactly like this. There is a known winning strategy. It's why it might take you a few hours to beat a game like, say, Megaman 2 the first play through, and then a year later people are doing it in speed runs in half an hour. There are certain strategies that anyone can use to win, the only difference being that one might lack the physical ability to carry through with that strategy.
So basically, the two types of games follow this pattern:
Action games require physical skill to beat, but a level of thought and strategy can greatly enhance your ability to beat them.
RPGs require strategy and planning to beat, but a level of time investment can greatly enhance your ability to beat them.
Same basic principle, different toolset.
Edit: I didn't mean to imply by my first paragraph that you could copy someone else's strategy verbatim to beat any given encounter in an RPG. Some RPGs you can, because the AI is pretty straightforward (FF's in recent years have been pretty bad about that, actually), but there are a lot of RPGs where the enemies don't always react the exact same way every time, so while there may be a key 'winning' strategy, you have to be able to modify your strategy on the fly to keep up with changes in your opponent's tactics.
etiolate said:
So because I can go and read about how Kasparov beat Deep Blue, chess isn't a game of skill? I think this argument is really odd. You can get advice and guidance to tell you what you need to do to succeed at any genre of game (Mega Man games have a ton of FAQs and walkthroughs on GameFAQs), but that doesn't dilute that there's still skill involved.
ethelred said:
No they're not. If you want to remain incredibly ignorant, feel free, but you're completely missing the OP's retarded argument by doing so.
"hay guys, RPGs do requier skill! look at fire emblem! forgive me for mentioning that game even though it plays absolutely nothing like a normal RPG and is in fact a war simulation game with some RPG elements like cut-scenes!!"
That's what you sound like whenever you throw FE or any other SRPG into these discussions.
Green Shinobi
Banned
Someone never played Chrono Trigger with the enemy attacks set to "active."
ethelred said:
I adored Triple Triad, but (and I know you'll kill me for saying this) I liked Tetra Master even more. The only thing I hated was that there was almost zero reward (finding out the four-armed man's name), whereas Card Mod was the most useful skill in the entire game of FF8. I remember just collecting standard cards from people in Balamb Garden and being so grossly overpowered by Dollet that I actually beat the mechanical spider. So while I liked the game Tetra Master more, FF8's card game was so much more rewarding. Modding and converting tools to spells and such was my favorite aspect of the whole game.
etiolate said:
Actually I want to re-quote this again because I think this is the standout post of the week, if not the month for me.
I cannot think of a post in my entire posting history that I've disagreed more with.
So in an adventure game, when you get to some complex puzzle that takes 30 mins to figure out, there is no skill involved in solving it because you could just give your instructions on how to solve it to another person and they could copy that and solve it without skill?
Pellham said:
While I'd group them seperately in most things. The general argument here is that any game that requires "thinking" or "planning" has no skill compared to reflex games. In that case there is nothing wrong with lumping rpgs/s-rpgs/strategy games, heck even puzzle games and adventure games together here.
charlequin
Banned
etiolate said:
There are very few RPGs with systems that require skillful strategy but which nonetheless can be easily be broken wide open with advice or guides from another. A FAQ can point out specific approaches that you may not have considered, but in most cases the nitty-gritty is still going to be something you have to figure out for yourself, especially in games with character customization that means your party might not even match up to the ones that FAQ writers are using. I'd be shocked if anyone who totally lacked in RPG skills could make it even a few floors into Etrian Odyssey based entirely on canned advice, for example.
ethelred said:
No RPG is Big Blue smart or person smart. That is why I include competitive play as a judgement of skill. You can use Kasparov versus another person, but they will adjust and respond differently. Many RPG bosses you can use the same strategy and it will always end the same.
You can do a paint by numbers horse painting. Or you can paint the horse from a blank page. The paint by numbers will always produce a horse that looks the same and looks nice. The painting of the horse on a blank page, even if intended to be the same horse each time will often be a little different each time. How well that blank page horse is painted is a testimony of skill and personal ability. The paint by numbers horse is just a testimony of the effort to do what is obvious.
True Underdog
Member
Tristam said:
This guy has a point. A lot of people don't take the time to change their gear around to see what would work best against a particular boss fight. They just grind grind grind until they're good enough. Grinding is awfully boring and may be why people think some RPGs take less "skill".
Someone mentioned earlier how you can just look up what certain people did and copy that, and that following instructions took little skill. I agree with this person, too, but it's up to the player whether they want to copy what someone else did (much less look it up in the first place). If they want to tarnish their gameplay experience, let them.
I'm not a huge fan of JRPGs (I'm more of a "white RPG kinda guy" :lol), but I recognize this much.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
Yes.
Management. Strategy. Patience.
Management. Strategy. Patience.
Between "white rpg", attacking ethelred when he says srpgs are rpgs (they are a subcategory of rpg, just as jrpgs and western rpgs are) and calling rpgs skill-less because an faq can mitigate any "skill" required, I find this thread repugnant to the intellect!
You cannot generalise too much here; a chessboard looks like a grey square from far away. It is certainly true that you can grind and by that, finish the game - this is simply a feature of many rpgs that allow those without "skill" to progress. As many have said - if a person can finish an rpg faster than another, isn't this similar to a person finishing an action game faster than another? Since I suppose, they did not make wasted attacks, had better combos, died less etc. This is indicative of something - you might not call it "skill" but there exists something in decent rpgs that allow one person to be better at them than another.
You cannot generalise too much here; a chessboard looks like a grey square from far away. It is certainly true that you can grind and by that, finish the game - this is simply a feature of many rpgs that allow those without "skill" to progress. As many have said - if a person can finish an rpg faster than another, isn't this similar to a person finishing an action game faster than another? Since I suppose, they did not make wasted attacks, had better combos, died less etc. This is indicative of something - you might not call it "skill" but there exists something in decent rpgs that allow one person to be better at them than another.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Is endurance a skill? If so, yes.
My first time seeing that puzzle involves my puzzle solving skills. Good puzzles in RPGs involve puzzle solving skills. If the puzzle though is similar to many puzzles I've seen, then I am just recalling memory and using the videogame logic I've developed over the years.
There are many times when I watch someone more casual or new to games play a game and run into a part of the game in which the answer is obvious to me, but creates a great obstacle to their progression. The answer is not obvious to me because of skill, but because of experience. I've developed a game logic over the years, so that when I see a manipulative objects within a room that they aren't just there for no reason. When I come to a point in which I'm stopped, I know I will need those manipulative objects(blocks, keys, weapons, tools).
When I was much younger and I had to piss badly, it was fearful for this to happen in a store or restaurant because the places were like labyrinths to me. Now, from having pissed in a lot of restaurant, I know how to find the bathroom on basic common sense. It is always out of sight, normally down a hallway. Before acquiring this knowledge I had to ask, which was sort of embaressing.
Now I don't have great bathroom finding skills. I just have the logic of where businesses put their toilets.
People are reading my posts as a blanket indictment of all RPGs. I have played RPGs that involve skill. I am just pointing to where that skill is to be found. To say that strategy = skill is not entirely truthful, because strategy can be copied like the floor plan to Denny's.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
It's not the kind of skill you typically associate with videogames but it is skill nonetheless. Like any skill it improves over time as you gain more experience.
Chances are if you can beat an RPG in fifty hours with your characters at level 50 or so, there's somebody out there who has beaten that same RPG in half the time and level. Typically they accomplish this feat by having a greater understanding of the mechanics, a better knowledge of knowing what abilities to use and when to use them, and most of all the the basic know-how for figuring a way out of every situation.
The best way to measure this is to pick up Etrian Odyssey(well any RPG could I work I guess but I think this is the example that won me over). Play the game for several hours and then check out the thread to compare your progress. Take note of the people who have accomplished more in the same amount of time, that is skill.
Chances are if you can beat an RPG in fifty hours with your characters at level 50 or so, there's somebody out there who has beaten that same RPG in half the time and level. Typically they accomplish this feat by having a greater understanding of the mechanics, a better knowledge of knowing what abilities to use and when to use them, and most of all the the basic know-how for figuring a way out of every situation.
The best way to measure this is to pick up Etrian Odyssey(well any RPG could I work I guess but I think this is the example that won me over). Play the game for several hours and then check out the thread to compare your progress. Take note of the people who have accomplished more in the same amount of time, that is skill.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Firestorm said:
Yeah that's pretty damn insane. =/
Shouta
Member
etiolate said:
Just because you can get a strategy for a battle in an RPG, it doesn't mean you'll execute it exactly or perfectly. It's the same thing for every genre. I can play Marvel vs Capcom 2 and I know what to avoid when fighting Storm/Sentinel/Commando but it doesn't mean I'll execute a defense flawlessly. There's a possibility I can put my own twist on that strategy that works best with my skill and situation as well.
RPGs do take skill but it's also the only genre where it can be overwritten by grinding. Lots of people tend to forget that and automatically call an RPG as mindless. Taking enemies or bosses far stronger than your party's level isn't an easy task. It's possible to beat it though with the correct strategy, usage of resources, and abilities. That's where the skill lies in RPGs.
Mefisutoferesu
Member
人修羅
If that don't require skill... and a modicum of insanity.... well, nuts to you.
Basically, in an RPG you can think of enemies as little puzzles that need to be solved and preparing a strategy to solving it is where the fun comes in with bosses being extra complex. Alas, these days though I'm starting to grow a little tired of it, most of the enemies take only a few turns to figure out and then it starts to become boring (repetitive)... maybe, I've played too many? Not to say there aren't exceptions here and there that keep things fresh, but these days the enemies are too stagnant in what they do and thus the puzzles become stagnant too, as a result it gets does get a little boring. I want more dynamic variables introduced to the battles... position, distance, facing, timing, numbers (dynamic mp consumption), field effects, height, element, etc, combos, I could go on... Incidentally that's basically what I'm looking for in this generation's rpgs... I find it kinda funny that the first real example, IMO, ended up on the PSP (FF7CC), though I'd rather games do it with things I mentioned above rather than a pachislot. ;p
If that don't require skill... and a modicum of insanity.... well, nuts to you.
Basically, in an RPG you can think of enemies as little puzzles that need to be solved and preparing a strategy to solving it is where the fun comes in with bosses being extra complex. Alas, these days though I'm starting to grow a little tired of it, most of the enemies take only a few turns to figure out and then it starts to become boring (repetitive)... maybe, I've played too many? Not to say there aren't exceptions here and there that keep things fresh, but these days the enemies are too stagnant in what they do and thus the puzzles become stagnant too, as a result it gets does get a little boring. I want more dynamic variables introduced to the battles... position, distance, facing, timing, numbers (dynamic mp consumption), field effects, height, element, etc, combos, I could go on... Incidentally that's basically what I'm looking for in this generation's rpgs... I find it kinda funny that the first real example, IMO, ended up on the PSP (FF7CC), though I'd rather games do it with things I mentioned above rather than a pachislot. ;p
Many RPGs are different from action games in that you can put more time into them to decrease their difficulty. This does not mean that skill doesn't apply to RPGs, however. The choices you make in preparation for and during battles call for strategic and logical thought, which is a skill.
Do RPGs require skill? Not usually. Does it apply to them? Absolutely.
Do RPGs require skill? Not usually. Does it apply to them? Absolutely.
Shouta said:
It just is really hard to screw up a menu based system. Of course I can read a MvC2 strategy, but pulling it off certainly requires personal ability. I can tell a relatively average gamer what to do in a menu driven, turn based RPG and they can pull it off normally. Hidden dice rolls offer a wall between player input and game actuality.
Aeana said:
Although what you're saying is perfectly correct, technically the inverse relationship between time invested and requisite skill applies to...well, pretty much every game.
Take a classic example of a hardcore game that requires reflex-based skill: Contra: Hard Corps. Now the first time I go through Contra: Hard Corps. I know I'm not going to make it to the end of the game without suffering a game over. But by the time I've played through it seven or eight times I've memorized the patterns of all the bosses in the game and, while skill is still definitely required, the game is much, much more manageable.
In the contra example, you've developed an impressive skill over the period of failing the game many times. In Aeana description of many rpgs, you've succeeded in the game with a very tiny level of skill required and a large investment of time. They're significantly different situations.Tristam said:
usea said:
It depends on how you play RPGs. It's been pointed out numerous times in this thread -- you can go out of your way to grind, thus reducing the requisite skill, or you can play the game in such a way that failure is the rule, not the exception. I already pointed out how I initially died on Seymour Flux in Final Fantasy X. When I understood his attacks (and, just as importantly, their pattern), I won.
So while Contra might not feature a "strategy" to fall back on like grinding, grinding remains just that: a fall back strategy.
What exactly are you trying to say? When did I give the impression that I thought no skill could be demonstrated in an rpg?Tristam said:
Aeana said that many rpgs can be beaten with little skill required. You said that any game can be beaten with time. I pointed out that he didn't just say a lot of time, and that your example didn't apply to what he said. Then you responded with something off the wall, and I don't understand its place in our small exchange.
BishopLamont
Banned
Yes they do. I remember playing FFX with the advanced sphere system on first time playing. Everything was easy for awhile until I started choosing the wrong skills in the sphere grid, needless to say I died many times in boss battles. It was hard but it was damn fun.
usea said:
Well actually Aeana also pointed out the inverse relationship between time investment and requisite skill, which is what I was getting at with my post. Thus, your post is correct (little skill required with lots of time investment). However, I pointed out that RPGs played with little time investment require much more skill (again, following the aforementioned relationship). I didn't mean to accuse you of dismissing any required skill for RPGs in general. I was merely showing how an RPG's requisite skill level could be similar to Contra's requisite skill level depending on how you play the game.
I didn't see Aeana highlight any specific example, so I don't know if he was referring exclusively to RPGs with lots of time investment -- just stating the general relationship mentioned above.
- Status