High Visual Quality - Visual Novel/RPG...What to use?

[truefaiterman]

Actually, the RPG genre itself (in videogames, of course) is mostly defined by it's combat system (Dungeon crawler, Tactic, Action, hell even SIMDATE RPG has the RPG label because of a combat system)

With that said, what I think defines an RPG as such is the "develope your character" part. In a lot of RPGs you can't actually "Roleplay" your character (with exceptions like Shin Megami Tensei, Persona, most W-RPGs, etc) but what defines them is the fact that you can control their stadistic developement (choosing your different stats, equipment, classes, tactics, etc, things that kinda define the way your character is portrayed).

If a game doesn't have any story choice, but a fixed path and way of solving a problem, and you can't choose how to develope your character either... What we have is more like an Adventure game (and even THOSE have those choices, from Indiana Jones to The Walking Dead). And we are obviously talking about games that work around their narrative.

Aaaand I think this is getting a lot out of topic so I'll answer to the question of this thread:

-If the focus will be in the VN part Renpy is the easiest choice.
-If the focus will be in the RPG mechanics you may preffer RPG Maker.
-If you want to control a more general engine with more possibilities go with Unity.

People have told you examples of RPG gameplay in Renpy games, and I'd say the VN programming is surprinsingly easy (even me, who literally COULDN'T PROGRAM A DECENT DOOR in RPGMaker, could make a Kinetic Novel in 24 hours).
I don't know about the resolution issues with RPGM since I havent touched that program in years, but art-wise you don't need to use "SNES graphics" or pixel art, nor anything like that. You can actually use high-quality hand-drawn animation there and it's fine, and you can even change the animation frames and overall parameters with the RGSS system. And a friend of mine managed to make a VN with RPGM (but he had trouble with some gameplay elements) (Example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o3VHvV ... freload=10 )
With Unity... as I said, you can do pretty much whatever you want. It's a general engine that allows to work in any kind of game, since Hatoful Boyfriend to Wasteland 2 or Slender. It may be the hardest one to learn, but you have a lot of assets to buy (or even get for free) and it's the most versatile.

[noeinan]

Eh, I think you’ll find they removed the dice so you can focus on the actual roleplaying. Removing a combat system in CRPGs without incorporating actual roleplaying elements into the game aren’t magically going to make games “combatless RPGs”, you’ll just have games of other genres. The way to evolve CRPGs is to continuously make inroads on incorporating "freedom of choice" and not trying to make an “RPG without combat,” because that’s missing the point of why CRPGs are like that in the first place.

I think you misunderstood my point-- what I'm saying is largely people have taken more combat-oriented RPG genre and converted them into computer games. Because this happened so early, and didn't happen with combatless TRPGs, the way computer gamers *view* the RPG genre includes combat. When I say that you could make computer games based off of other elements of TRPGs (such as converting Amber RPGs ranking and autosuccess/failure system, or using a non-combat oriented campaign as a base) I don't mean "if you do those things computer gamers will accept it in the RPG genre."

What I mean is we, as creators, shouldn't be restricting ourselves by genre in that way. So, if we want to make a game based on a TRPG of a different type, such as concentrating on political intrigue, and interpersonal relationships, with little to no combat, we should do that. To us, we may think of it as RPG based, because it is-- but gamers will likely reframe the game in their mind away from the intent (using TRPG as a base) and instead categorize it as an "adventure game" or "psychological" or some other video game genre that gamers largely do not perceive as requiring combat.

An adventure game has 3 elements; a narrative, exploration, and puzzles (logic puzzles, dialogue puzzles etc etc.) If it doesn't have those 3 elements then it's not an adventure game.

I was thinking more of a digital version of "choose your own adventure" games.

Genre labels are only useful for customers. Theries y provide nice, quick summaof the gameplay experience you can expect to find within. Not much use to those wishing to create stuff. That being said, if someone wanted advice on what engine to use to create an RPG I'm automatically assuming it has a combat system.

And yes, that's why my point was "think about what kind of game you want to make instead of worrying about the genre." I would be pretty confident that the OP was intending to mean they want to make a game with stats, combat, and likely an inventory. (I was giving my two cents on the discussion about genre, however, because trooper6 was talking about video games origin in TRPGs, and I wanted to add the bit about how player expectations of the genre have created a division between the more diverse definition of RPG in tabletop versus the more strict understanding/definition in video games.)

[papillon]

Genre definitions are almost always fuzzy, I'm afraid, on the computer and off. I used to keep bookmarks of several different people's tests of what 'qualifies' a game to be considered an RPG. Each list was different, and there are many games where it gets fuzzy. Since I specialise in making weird games that mess with boundaries I often bring these up to run my games through them and see whether they would technically meet someone's category or not.

I generally don't market LLTQ with RPG as its primary genre because, as a commercial product, it's important to manage player expectations, and if you go around saying "check out this new RPG" most people would get the wrong idea and be disappointed. But it *is* an RPG by many definitions, and it appeals to players who like tabletop games with strong character design systems. It even has combat, sort of, just not very much of it.

As for 'simulation', that's using 'sim' in the sense it's commonly used among eastern-gaming fans who play stat-raisers. It catches occasional flack from more western-gaming fans who expect Train Simulator, Tractor Simulator, etc, and find LLTQ to be nothing of the sort. (The steam listing has its genres set as - Indie, RPG, Simulation, Strategy.) For that reason I wouldn't put Simulation as its primary genre there either.

And Black Closet is even more of a mess genre-wise. In some ways it's very much an RPG, although an extremely weird one where the 'combat' is non-violent (the skills are used to investigate mysteries, search locations, interrogate suspects, etc). However, the stat-raising and the role-playing are entirely divorced from each other, since the character you control in a role-playing sense is the one person who DOESN'T have stats.

[Cith]

As for 'simulation', that's using 'sim' in the sense it's commonly used among eastern-gaming fans who play stat-raisers. It catches occasional flack from more western-gaming fans who expect Train Simulator, Tractor Simulator, etc, and find LLTQ to be nothing of the sort. (The steam listing has its genres set as - Indie, RPG, Simulation, Strategy.) For that reason I wouldn't put Simulation as its primary genre there either.

Have you ever played "The Sims", because that game fairly effectively nulls your argument. In that game you raise your stats to guide your character, and it's dubbed a "life simulation." It is NOT dubbed an "RPG."

The sim genre is a wide category which includes a lot of different type of sim games, train simulators are fairly different to life simulators, which are again a little different to sport simulators. The people who go into LLTQ expecting something like "Tractor Simulator" are either a) fairly ridiculous or b) don't have much experience in that genre. It's like people going into XCOM expecting an experience similar to Total War: Rome. They're both turn-based strategy games, so why don't they deliver the same experience? *Rolls eyes*

The people who like to dub your games "RPGs" are those who want to expand the CRPG genre using TRPG elements. Most of the time they just cause a mess. Also, be aware that the "sim" genre on the computer incorporates a lot of the TRPG elements that didn't make it into the original definition of "CRPG." TRPG players who wish to fudge the CRPG genre into something which more aligns to their Tabletop experience (it doesn't need combat, for example) are willfully ignoring the fact that the sim genre now covers a lot of those elements, and this is where a lot of the problems are coming from. And I know this because I'm on a forum of such people. The fact remains that LLTQ is only recognisable as an RPG to those who play RPGs off the computer, I would question the use of such a thing especially considering there's a genre for computer games which deals with these elements just fine (and it's called the SIM genre.)

Since I specialise in making weird games that mess with boundaries

I don't find that at all, your games are quite easy to categorise. Magical Diary is a life sim, LLTQ is a raising sim (CRPGs require a combat system,) Cute Knight Kingdom is an RPG, Date Warp is a VN etc etc.

I should point out I haven't played most of your games (because of time constraints, I'll get around to playing Magical Diary some day ) I just feel as if your games aren't to difficult too classify.

However, the stat-raising and the role-playing are entirely divorced from each other, since the character you control in a role-playing sense is the one person who DOESN'T have stats.

Hmmm, not enough information to make judgement

[trooper6]

The people who like to dub your games "RPGs" are those who want to expand the CRPG genre using TRPG elements. Most of the time they just cause a mess. Also, be aware that the "sim" genre on the computer incorporates a lot of the TRPG elements that didn't make it into the original definition of "CRPG." TRPG players who wish to fudge the CRPG genre into something which more aligns to their Tabletop experience (it doesn't need combat, for example) are willfully ignoring the fact that the sim genre now covers a lot of those elements, and this is where a lot of the problems are coming from. And I know this because I'm on a forum of such people. The fact remains that LLTQ is only recognisable as an RPG to those who play RPGs off the computer, I would question the use of such a thing especially considering there's a genre for computer games which deals with these elements just fine (and it's called the SIM genre.)

And you are ignoring that genre categories are made by people and therefore are historically and culturally dependent as well as being subjective. And because people have different views, the categories will always be unstable. Categories change over time and place and people's understanding of them change over time and place. They are not objective facts. RPG categories are not as cut and dried as you wish it were.

I see that as a good thing. Because not being set in stone allows for change. Some old grognards insisted that Vampire: The Masquerade or Amber or whatever weren't RPGs because (whatever criteria they came up with), but the world of RPGs is better for their existence. I don't play a lot of Forge-style games, but I'm glad for their existence either.

No one person, not even Andrew Rilstone, gets to be the sole arbiter of meaning. Meaning is always contested and negotiated--and therefore changeable.

[Cith]

And you are ignoring that genre categories are made by people and therefore are historically and culturally dependent as well as being subjective.

Categories are made to serve a purpose, in this case to separate games into recognisable GAMEPLAY ELEMENTS to make things easier for the customer. These categories were created and developed with pre-requisites in mind which are not subject to change. It is not up to developers to decide "what's the use of such categories? I'll break these down and merge them to show how creative and artistic I am" because at the end of the day these categories do not serve THEM and all they will do is potentially annoy customers. And people who don't agree with these categories can stop trying to shift the boundaries, because all that does is add confusion.

Action games will always be games that involve player skill, Adventure games will always be those which involve narrative and exploration, the definition of Puzzle games has never (and will never) change. CRPGs are no different purely because there exists a small number of off-line TRPG fans who want to re-align the definition. But good luck trying.

Categories change over time and place and people's understanding of them change over time and place. They are not objective facts.

That's not in dispute. Trying to pick up the RPG genre and BARGE your way into another genre's domain is NOT called a natural evolution of the genre, however.

No one person, not even Andrew Rilstone, gets to be the sole arbiter of meaning. Meaning is always contested and negotiated--and therefore changeable.

When your definition of RPG encroaches on the realms of other genres, I would contest that it is NOT changeable in that instance. When the definition of CRPG starts to approach that of the true goal of off-line RPG gameplay, then I would say it does.

[papillon]

As for 'simulation', that's using 'sim' in the sense it's commonly used among eastern-gaming fans who play stat-raisers. It catches occasional flack from more western-gaming fans who expect Train Simulator, Tractor Simulator, etc, and find LLTQ to be nothing of the sort. (The steam listing has its genres set as - Indie, RPG, Simulation, Strategy.) For that reason I wouldn't put Simulation as its primary genre there either.

Have you ever played "The Sims", because that game fairly effectively nulls your argument. In that game you raise your stats to guide your character, and it's dubbed a "life simulation." It is NOT dubbed an "RPG."

My 'argument' is that a large number of players disagree with you. You are absolutely welcome to go and yell at every single one of them and tell them that they're wrong.

Many people actually don't believe the Sims is a simulation game, and only grudgingly accept it due to the manufacturer's association with 'real' sim games. I am not saying that it isn't. I am saying that many players feel this way and that is relevant to one's marketing strategy.

Since I specialise in making weird games that mess with boundaries

I don't find that at all, your games are quite easy to categorise. Magical Diary is a life sim, LLTQ is a raising sim (CRPGs require a combat system,) Cute Knight Kingdom is an RPG

What makes CKK an RPG and Magical Diary not? They both involve stat-raising, dungeon-crawling, relationship-building, and turn-based-combat with HP and MP.

Many would argue that CKK is a raising sim, not an RPG - it *is* heavily based on Princess Maker, after all, and most of the endings are determined by your stats, not by killing an end boss.

You'll also find a lot of players arguing quite loudly that LLTQ is not a raising sim at all, because it's not open-ended (you can't just decide to focus solely on animals and get a Beast Queen ending, you'll be murdered) and it doesn't have random stat-gain. Since the paths through the game are entirely deterministic, many argue that it is, in fact, a VN. Others strongly insist that it is a puzzle game. (Usually because they incorrectly think there's a 'right' answer.)

People have their own specific criteria about games that they often think are self-evident, but aren't. For example, I get really annoyed when people describe LLTQ as a roguelike. (Yes, this happens. Repeatedly.) As I understand the definition of roguelike this could not be farther from the truth! But people, man, people use words however they feel like, it gets confusing.

Action games will always be games that involve player skill, Adventure games will always be those which involve narrative and exploration, the definition of Puzzle games has never (and will never) change.

... You do know just how much arguing there is over quite a lot of games into which of those three categories they actually fall into, right?

And that's without looking at the latest Steam releases to find a match-3 being listed as Action and Adventure.

[trooper6]

*adds papillon to my list of VN makers whose work I will support sight unseen for her intelligent commentary in this thread*

[Cith]

My 'argument' is that a large number of players disagree with you. You are absolutely welcome to go and yell at every single one of them and tell them that they're wrong.

In point of fact it is not a large number at all. It’s a large number only when taken in isolation, but considering the number of RPG or Sim fans number in the millions, then no. It isn’t.

Here’s a question, of the 10 million or so people who played The Sims how many of those people would think it’s an RPG? How many would NOT call it a Sim? The answer would be very few, right? Another question, when you call something an RPG the first thing which springs to mind for most people is stat-based combat, yes? This is the category system doing its job. The fact that some people disagree with these categories doesn’t mean it’s not successful. The people who disagree are just confusing the issue, which is unfortunate for the many, many people out there who don’t care about the intricacies of the genre and just want to know what the game is about.

One more question, how many of the people who don't think the Sims is a simulation game a) hate the game, b )look down on the game, and c) don't want that game associated with a genre they respect? Because these aren't good reasons for not calling it a Sim (and yes, I've come across these sorts of people. I'm not just making this up. These days a game being "beneath somebody" seems to be a valid reason for saying a game is not of a certain category.)

What makes CKK an RPG and Magical Diary not? They both involve stat-raising, dungeon-crawling, relationship-building, and turn-based-combat with HP and MP.

If it has a turn-based combat system reliant on a character's abilities (and not just one-shotting certain monsters because you know the right spell) then it would have to have 'RPG' somewhere in there. It IS possible for games to be hybrids (like ACTION/RPG, DATING SIM/RPG and ACTION/ADVENTURE.) Sorry but I’d have to play them first, and I haven’t found the time (it's on my backlog, I promise )

You'll also find a lot of players arguing quite loudly that LLTQ is not a raising sim at all, because it's not open-ended (you can't just decide to focus solely on animals and get a Beast Queen ending, you'll be murdered) and it doesn't have random stat-gain. Since the paths through the game are entirely deterministic, many argue that it is, in fact, a VN. Others strongly insist that it is a puzzle game. (Usually because they incorrectly think there's a 'right' answer.)

Ask these people why sims are supposed to be open-ended again? Especially considering sims have little to do with narrative. Then ask them this question. If a simulation game is supposed to be "open-ended," why is there a category of games known as Open-Ended Simulation. Sorry but it's a tad ridiculous. Also what does “random stat gain” have to do with the genre? If I go to any western or eastern fan of Sims and yell “Sim” at him, is one of the things that pops into mind “random stat gains”?

I assume the people who think it’s a puzzle game are trying to be clever, it sounds like they’re mocking the trial-and-error nature of your game. It’s not a serious point, and therefore not one you (or I) should seriously be entertaining.

The Visual Novel thing is understable, considering nobody actually has a working definition of a VN. RPGWatch calls it a VN AS WELL as a monarchy sim, because if visual novel fans don’t know what the hell they’re a fan of how can anybody else? The most logical explanation of a Visual Novel I’ve seen explains that the category of a Visual Novel identifies the storytelling method of the game and has nothing to do with the tags which categorise the gameplay elements (The Visual Novel tag denotes how a story is told and whether the story branches due to story-oriented choices made by the player and not choices involving gameplay.) Thus the tags don't clash with one another. There are some Sims which are told in a visual novel style, and those games can very easily have both tags (VN + Sim.) It sounds logical.

... You do know just how much arguing there is over quite a lot of games into which of those three categories they actually fall into, right?

And that's without looking at the latest Steam releases to find a match-3 being listed as Action and Adventure.

Not very much. There'll always be SOME arguments, but relative to the 20 million fans of action games and the god-knows how many fans of puzzle games there are, there isn't many arguments. Go to most people on the street, tell them it’s an action game, and they envisage a game which relies on player skill (reaction time etc.) Go to any adventure game fan and they’ll tell you that, yes The Walking Dead IS an adventure game (and not a Visual Novel) because it has exploration, a narrative, and puzzles. In FACT visual novel fans have been annoying adventure game fans for years, by claiming most adventure games (999, Phoenix Wright etc) as Visual Novels. These are straight up adventure, and once again a small group of people trying to shift boundaries have been causing confusion.

These are very straight up categories, they've existed for decades and confusion only reigns when people do silly things. Like Steam (LOL STEAM.)

[Rossfellow]

It's almost magical, really. We have familiarized ourselves with the "genres" we know in video gaming for about two decades, but when we take a step back it's actually a whole lot of uncomfortable grey territory.

It was easy back then because if you had a racing game, all it was about was getting from point A to point B in as little time as possible. Fighting games were about chunking out an enemy health bar before they do yours. Puzzle games were about solving a set of progressively difficult riddles. "Score more Points" games, etc etc.

But what about RPGs? What was the very first thing to be labelled an RPG? Why is it so "formless" compared to the other genres?

The earliest examples I could name is, of course, Dungeons and Dragons, and the entire category of Pen & Paper RPGs it popularized. But what was it really about?

1. Was it about progressing through a story, in a world created by the DM?
2. Was it about the dice-based "Challenge" system?
3. Was it about the stats and numbers in character building and development?
4. Was it about "Being in character"?

I think these questions still carry over today when it comes to discussing what an RPG is about. Replace dice with a game engine, stats with a database, and DM with Game Developer and it would still apply.

If you answered yes to all of them, you would be correct. If you answer yes to one but not the others, you would still be correct. RPGs are all these things, but at the same time not defined by one specific combination......

Now that's a complicated genre.

[noeinan]

*adds papillon to my list of VN makers whose work I will support sight unseen for her intelligent commentary in this thread*

I always wish there was a "like" button on these forums, and then end up making comments that don't really have content that couldn't be summed up in a "like" button due to that lack.