Staredit Network

I have a serious problem with people calling their maps RPG's and It's a very valid one. ALL BUT ONE RPG MAP I'VE SEEN WAS NOT AN RPG. And for these reasons:

1. No real characters (you just placed a unit and gave it a name, it doesn't talk or anything).
2. (goes along with #1) No character development or personality. (They are and stay meerly units in the game. Never talking, having emotions, etc)
3. Little to no story. (sticking something in the briefing and some text messages every now and then along the way does NOT consitute as a story)
4. No battle system (while this isn't a requirement for an RPG, it's just an added argument, all people are doing is killing massive amounts of enemies with a hero unit)
5. EVERY "RPG" I have played easily fits under the catagory of an Adventure/Action game. And thats pretty much what they are, because there is a same amount of story, enemies, whatever in both games.

Now I've had tons of people come up to me and argue over this, but the most valid argument I've heard so far is that it's an RPG because you take on the role of a character and play it.

If that was the only thing that made RPG's, then EVERY GAME would be an RPG. Including Starcraft, Gunbound, Counter Strike, ####ing sport games. I think you already know why that's true.

I know a lot of you are going to want to flame me or ignore me after reading this, but I just had to get it off my chest. It has been irritating me for a long time now and is just getting worse.

For anyone who cares what map I played that (barely) qualifies as a real RPG, it's Doomshift.

My problem with RPG maps that are actually RPG maps is that most people on B.net are too stupid to play them.

I like when I made Last Dawn... it was a Hero Action Game... HAG. I made a HAG.

The way RPG is defined in the community is where you have a single unit that is upgradable.

That doesn't make it right, Yoshi. That just means that enough people accept it like that. Which is wrong.

I SORT of agree, but I don't think it really matters, if someone likes to play them then who cares. So make a section called "Action/Adventure" and put the maps in that section alright?

Think about something else, if you wanted to make a multiplayer RPG and have it true to being character driven, what happens if one of the players isn't in the game or you can't fill all the slots.

You can't drive a game on the basis that it MUST have 4 players for it to work.

Maybe your right but we're making maps on a primarily strategy game, so work with what we have?

Every community is different. As much as you dont like it (I dont like it either) you are correct AND I agree with you, most maps on bnet are refered to on battle.net as RPG's when they aren't. However, it became habit. RPGs are defined as that in the SC community, although its incorrect everywhere else.

If it's character driven, then it's closer to an RPG. You can always make triggers to put those characters in in key points. Or even make them computer controled.

Because without all the things I listed, it's just not an RPG.

I'm sure most of you have played Zelda games, those are like border line action/rpg. But I would consider it more of a RPG. For the reason your main character never really contributes to any conversation and there really isn't a whole lot of story or plot development going on.

But a game like Chrono Trigger (not the map) would be an rpg because there is a ton of dialogue and change in story, and such.

Its not that big of a deal anyway Chu. Besides, you notice that some of the best RPG's are the ones that are accually RPG's with dialog, music, and the whole bit.

You can't really espect to get the same story over and over again, Chu. People innovates, they find new "definitions" of RPGs, and SC happened to have a map where you choose your heros, fight with them and level up. That's what people learned about them. They suck? So what! Don't play them, and as a map maker yourself, make a worthy UMS map and show people what a real RPG is... That's about it.

Can't always have your little lolipop, 'y know...

Actually SP, I had a very nice RPG planned out. It would be a FF style RPG with the Starcraft characters and story line as its backbone. But the thing is, the string limit prevented me from making it. I would need close to 3000 strings of text to do it properly (even with using no name locations and no comments on triggers). And thats 3x more than what SC provides.

Oh well... maybe I'll make a "mini-rpg" someday.

Perhaps you should just try to make "campaings", a series of RPG-style maps. If you can actually manage to get something decent up (which I do not doupt of), and get people of Battle.net WANT more of your maps, it WILL become something great.

Gotta have Battle.net's mentality in your mind too. It's beautiful to have comments from 100 persons here about "you map pwnz", but as long as it's not played over Battle.net publicly, personally, I don't consider it an "extremly big success". Givem what they want....

Hum I'm going off topic now...

I feel the same way about RPG's. And I have a complaint about RPG's/Rp's... there's never anything new, either. Always the same crap. The best RPG I've seen is Incubus RPG. I was thinking of making an Rpg, and an Rp, the kindss that are "new and revolutionary", but never finished them. I suck with triggers. And I'm lazy.

I've taken those things into consideration right after I made my Action/adventure game.. The Rise Of Ishan, that is why I aim to provide a storyline, dialogue, and everything I can to make up for it in The Revenge of Ishan, I've included the FF battle system, spell casting system, side quests, and whatnot.. but SC does limit the amount of strings.. so I decided when I release this map, I will include a story in Microsoft Word zipped with the map

Well, having it zipped up with it as a Word document would mean it won't be distributed off B.Net. If it's multi-player that is.

Most RPGs I've played are pointless, level and kill, level and kill, type of maps. It get boring and repetitive. Of course, there are exceptions, so, meh.

Those exceptions are what I live, hope, strive, [and once tried to make] for.

So make it.

Also maybe thats the reason why other people haven't gone full story driven on their maps?

I personally think if someone does a good job of Action / Adventure type starcraft RPG's then it doesnt' matter if it's actually an RPG or not, I also think if someone does a bad job of a real RPG then it doesn't matter that its really an RPG it still sucks.

Also I don't agree with "Zelda" being boarderline just because Zelda himself doesn't really talk. Which he does a little anyway. Zelda is I agree, action/adventure but it's also RPG.

I define RPG as being any game where you're thrown into the role of a character wether that character speaks or not. How much you get to know your character I don't believe matters, because the fact that you're communicating with people etc means that your controling the character, thus Role Playing.

You don't see the character speak because YOUR the character, you can't speak to the computer, you can't give input etc.

You don't get to know the character because YOUR the character, you should already understand yourself in and out.

Thats why most of the "Action/Adventure" RPG maps just throw you into a story, the good ones keep up with the story, some of the bad ones don't. But you're in the story, your making the decisions and actions etc, and you've taken the role of a character.

They don't have to speak to make it an RPG.

P.S. StarCraft and Counterstrike COULD be classified as RPG IF they didn't fall into larger catagories.

Counterstrike could be a lot like King's Quest, apart from Counterstrike's primary is the shooting, while King's Quest is more about questing and finding items.

StarCraft with using the heroes etc COULD be classified as RPG If it didn't fall into a strategy catagory... I mean it's isometric like Zelda etc, however you control too many units for it to be classed as RPG. You're not making the decisions of an individual character.

FireFly, Zelda is a she, and she does talk. Link is the character you're thinking of.

Also, if we go by the classification of dumbasses in labling hero maps "rpgs". Then we have to thus lable ALL games RPG's. Because in all games, you are taking the role of something or something to accomplish some goal. Thats why SC and Counter Strike are, by far, not even close to being an RPG. They don't have the real qualifications.

And I can't simply 'make' that map. Like I said, I need at very least 3000 text strings. SC doesn't provide it.

The thing that seperates Action/Adventure from RPG is dialogue, story, character development, and battle system (again, this isn't a 100% must have).

Without those distinct differences (and I urge you to compare RPG games to action/adventure games and see for yourself) then they are the same type of game.

#1 I meant make the smaller mini-map

#2 I already explained why ALL games aren't RPG.

#3 Your right, they are more like action adventure but once again, this is a staredit, Starcraft is a strategy game. It's hard to make a full on RPG especially for multiplayer when the engine is for strategy.

So ok, why don't you start a revolution and put all the non-RPG maps into a new Action Adventure section?

Honestly I doubt Yoshi would let me classify them like that. Especially since they have RPG splatered all over their names (because you have to call it RPG for it to be one -- DUH!).

Alright well just for you I'll rename the "Action Adventure" game I'm making from C4E RPG to C4E AAG (action adventure game)

You really don't have to, this is just a rant that I composed and expected no one to read. -_-

Nah I did it cuz I kinda agree, and its not like "action adventure" doesnt sound cool too.

I totally agree with Chu.

Some examples:

Tank RPG
A day at School RPG

Then it's not the map's problem, it's more the stupid map maker that makes it an "RPG" cuz either he actually THINK it's one, or he's just too stupid...

I've seen some great map makers that FUN maps that are RPG's that aren't RPG's...