Sunless Skies to officially leave Early Access in September, also now has gamepad support

Great news, can't wait.
Although too grindy, I really loved Sunless Sea.

For how little I played Sunless Sea , the atmosphere was thoroughly enjoyable.
Hope they capture that once more.
Sad to hear they've been having trouble.

It took me a long time before I gave Sunless Sea a proper play, and while it was a little grindy and static, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience overall.

But how can this be called a RPG? We don't even have a friggin' character to play, only a boat? What is it about this game that qualifies as "RPG"? Because it contains exploration? I mean... Come on?

Sure, the developer can market it however they like, but do you think this is a RPG, Liam?

But how can this be called a RPG? We don't even have a friggin' character to play, only a boat? What is it about this game that qualifies as "RPG"? Because it contains exploration? I mean... Come on?

Sure, the developer can market it however they like, but do you think this is a RPG, Liam?

Their previous game , Sunless Sea had your captain have stats and you also got a crew.
Wondering if they did the same here.
Also you could handle encounters in the game world quite differently whether you had a perk or not.
I guess that counts ...

But how can this be called a RPG? We don't even have a friggin' character to play, only a boat? What is it about this game that qualifies as "RPG"? Because it contains exploration? I mean... Come on?

Sure, the developer can market it however they like, but do you think this is a RPG, Liam?

If it is anything like Sunless Sea (which is probably safe to assume), you have:

• One or more characters with stats (your main character likely being the captain)


• A ship with stats and equipment


• Lots of choices to make and consequences to bear


• Outcomes of actions are primarily dependent on stats (in the text passages) and very much influenced by stats and equipment in combat

I'd call that a prime example of RPG, even if not a pure one (the combat is still primarily player-skill based).

RPG does NOT mean you play a person, which would be a terribly narrow-minded and misleading definition.
If that was the criteria, Doom would be an RPG.
If you WOULD play the ship (again, I'm certain you actually play the captain), it would still be an RPG - and the ship would have some kind of intelligence of its own.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 7 Mar 2018 at 6:40 am UTC

RPG does NOT mean you play a person, which would be a terribly narrow-minded and misleading definition.
If that was the criteria, Doom would be an RPG.

If that was the ONLY criteria, yes. But I do think that a Role Playing Game at least should be about playing a role, in addition to the technical features expected (many of which you do list). Yes, skill trees, exploration, stats, buffs, XP, all that mechanical stuff that makes a good RPG.

Character, relationship, choices, quests, storyline, unique items and outfits, all that stuff... That's really what RPG is about in my book. In a RPG I expect to play a character, a ship should be a mount and not the other way around. But of course, what's the difference between controlling a team and a ship with a crew? One could argue.

Could a rally game be called a RPG? well, it has customisation, stats and items that affect performance, there can be both "quests" and a storyline in them too. So, RPG? Nah.

A genre is more than the technical feature list, imo.

If that was the ONLY criteria, yes. But I do think that a Role Playing Game at least should be about playing a role, in addition to the technical features expected (many of which you do list). Yes, skill trees, exploration, stats, buffs, XP, all that mechanical stuff that makes a good RPG.

As I said, it would have to be an intelligent ship to make it capable of behaving like a person. Playing just a chunk of steel indeed wouldn't be possible.

Could a rally game be called a RPG? well, it has customisation, stats and items that affect performance, there can be both "quests" and a storyline in them too. So, RPG? Nah.

A rally game cannot be a pure RPG because the player skill is the all-deciding factor (at least in all rally games I played).
Would you not drive yourself, but rather the driving would be mostly done for you, and the quality of it influenced by character statistics, then yes, a rally game COULD be an RPG. Interesting idea, actually. A rally RPG for people who hate driving ;)

Customization is irrelevant if it does not affect actual gameplay other than by visuals. The fact that you can put wigs on does not define or change a genre.
Neither do quests and a storyline. Pretty much every game gives you a story and objectives to follow, so that can't be it.
There are even (rare) RPGs completely without a story, yet they are RPGs and nobody would doubt it.

A genre is more than the technical feature list, imo.

What else would it be?
There's a list of "conditions" that make an RPG, the more of these are fulfilled, the more the scale points to it being an RPG.
What exactly that list is, is probably debatable, but it would certainly include the ratio of player skill vs character stats and the fact that you need to play a role (or even multiple ones).

If you can or can not immerse yourself in the role, just because you have trouble identifying as a ship (you wouldn't be the only one, me too ;) ) is irrelevant to the definition as it is purely subjective.

Definitions must function without subjectivity or they are useless as definitions. That includes genres.
Everything else leads to bollocks like people claiming only fantasy games can be RPGs (yes, I witnessed such a "notion" ).


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 7 Mar 2018 at 3:45 pm UTC

Would you not drive yourself, but rather the driving would be mostly done for you

Now you're narrowing RPG down to be of really really oldschool dice throw type things. Most modern RPGs do combine stats and player ability. And that's exactly what a rally game does too :)

And the deeper into the "action RPG" realm we go, the more player skill focused we get. Still, I'd say they are still indeed RPGs! Why? Cause you just know it when you see it.

Customization is irrelevant if it does not affect actual gameplay other than by visuals. The fact that you can put wigs on does not define or change a genre.

Oh there's PLENTY of gameplay-related tweaks in racing games! Tyres, brakes, engines, wheels, gear box, steering wheels, all adding some to the stats of the car.

A genre is more than the technical feature list, imo.

What else would it be?
There's a list of "conditions" that make an RPG, the more of these are fulfilled, the more the scale points to it being an RPG.

And my point with comparing the technicalities with a wildly different genre (rally racing) was to point out that there ARE more than just sheer game mechanics that differs a genre.

Most games today that contains a character and a story - heck, most genres whatsoever! - has adopted some mechanics that used to be the hallmark of a RPG. We see it everywhere.

Still, when you see a RPG, you know it is a RPG. And this game here, is not a rpg.

What exactly that list is, is probably debatable, but it would certainly include the ratio of player skill vs character stats and the fact that you need to play a role (or even multiple ones).

It's still not that easy :) Cause in a rally game you play the role of a rally driver, don't you agree? :D Or a FPS - you play the role of a soldier or whatever.

If you can or can not immerse yourself in the role, just because you have trouble identifying as a ship (you wouldn't be the only one, me too ;) ) is irrelevant to the definition as it is purely subjective.

LOL!

Everything else leads to bollocks like people claiming only fantasy games can be RPGs (yes, I witnessed such a "notion" ).

Yeah that's bollocks. But I would draw one definite line on whether or not you're an actual character, and not an item.

:)


Last edited by Beamboom on 7 Mar 2018 at 9:49 pm UTC

Would you not drive yourself, but rather the driving would be mostly done for you

Now you're narrowing RPG down to be of really really oldschool dice throw type things. Most modern RPGs do combine stats and player ability

Just because lots of people repeat something wrong all the time, doesn't make it true.
At some point, lazy marketing folks/devs started calling everything with stats just an RPG, which is as clueless as calling everything an RPG that lets you play a role.
The "oldschool" definition is indeed the correct one. Being old doesn't make it wrong, and people using a wrong definition nowadays quite often doesn't make that one right. Just like people using "literally" wrong a lot doesn't make it right.
And those of us with actual standards won't really stand for it.
The whole thing comes from PnP and that's where the purest definition should remain.

And the deeper into the "action RPG" realm we go, the more player skill focused we get. Still, I'd say they are still indeed RPGs!

Partly, yes. Nobody is arguing that. I think.

Most games today that contains a character and a story - heck, most genres whatsoever! - has adopted some mechanics that used to be the hallmark of a RPG. We see it everywhere.

Which is precisely what makes a definition of RPG that applies to practically every game out there completely useless.
It is as if you'd call every movie an action movie just because a person in it does an action.
It is ridiculous and should make it obvious something is wrong with your definition.
However, I do agree that by now a lot of games have very slight RPG elements to them - I guess because devs figured out getting new abilities and improving them is fun?

Still, when you see a RPG, you know it is a RPG. And this game here, is not a rpg.

Honestly, this makes you come off as incredibly narrow-minded.
A game that fulfills all the conditions I posted earlier should not be an RPG just because the visual representation of travel & combat in the game is that of the ship instead of its captain?
Despite the captain being a very tangible character on its own with stats in dialogues, portrait, etc.?

As I said, it may not be a pure RPG, sure. Pure RPGs are games like Caves Of Qud (or pretty much all turn-based roguelikes), Underrail, Age Of Decadence, etc.
While games like Skyrim, Deus Ex, Dishonored, Sunless Sea/Skies are mixtures of RPG with something else.

What exactly that list is, is probably debatable, but it would certainly include the ratio of player skill vs character stats and the fact that you need to play a role (or even multiple ones).

It's still not that easy :) Cause in a rally game you play the role of a rally driver, don't you agree? :D Or a FPS - you play the role of a soldier or whatever.

Again, it is a list, and playing a (or multiple) role is one of the conditions, not the only one.
The more conditions fulfilled, the more of a pure RPG.

Besides, yes, you arguably do play the role of a driver, but in what game does that driver actually have (increasable) stats, abilities, etc.? What rally games I know give cars stats, but not the driver.
Hence that rally example you try so hard to dismantle the correct definition of RPG with is just not working, as it is the car that has the stats and all of the gameplay attached to it, not the driver.

In essence we agree with a lot of this, as far as I understand. But this dialogue is interesting. :)

The "oldschool" definition is indeed the correct one. Being old doesn't make it wrong, and people using a wrong definition nowadays quite often doesn't make that one right.

At the same time; things change. Everything, including language, evolves over time. And so do genres.

The whole thing comes from PnP and that's where the purest definition should remain.

Historically that is correct, but there are plenty examples of things emerging from their roots and by nature are quite different today. It's just so long ago that people now associate it differently. So in reality, it's all to do with perspective on time. For you the roots are clear, near and should be respected. But as years go by and computing power increase those roots are further and further afar from where computer RPGs are.

It is as if you'd call every movie an action movie just because a person in it does an action.
It is ridiculous and should make it obvious something is wrong with your definition.

The interesting thing with this quote is that it seems that suddenly the tables are turned. It's YOU who's insisted on this game being a RPG based on your definitions, not me. I don't want to include this game into the framework of what a RPG is. But you, with your definitions, insist that it is so.

It is in fact me who say to you what you now say to me in your last sentence there. Quite interesting.

Still, when you see a RPG, you know it is a RPG. And this game here, is not a rpg.

Honestly, this makes you come off as incredibly narrow-minded.

I can live with that. But yes, I do define a RPG as a game where you play a character as one of the requirements. I must admit that.

Furthermore, if we are to talk about the oldschool RPGs, I must admit (much to your pleasure now, I suspect) that I find many of the oldschool RPGs to in fact today more belong to the strategy bag than the rpg bag.
Times change! Walking down a predefined linear corridor with characters popping up like pawns on a board, taking turns to do their strategic moves... This, to me, smells more like turn-based strategy today. It is how they used to be back in the days (I'm soon 50 years old btw), yes indeed, but today such game mechanics are more welcome (warning, completely subjective perspective now) FOR ME in a strategy game than in a RPG. I get less attached to my characters in a game where they are simply just tools to achieve a goal - win a board game. With RPGs I want to be immersed in a world. Roleplay, yes BE a character. In a strategy game I want to consider statistics, strategies and probability. i want to win. In a RPG I want to experience and evolve a character.

(I still obviously define them as RPG, just to state the obvious. But meant as a perspective on how genres evolve and change over time).

A game that fulfills all the conditions I posted earlier should not be an RPG just because the visual representation of travel & combat in the game is that of the ship instead of its captain?

You make a very rational point here, from a technical point of view it makes perfect sense. It's easy to agree.

But here's where I would claim that this is precisely why we can't just have a list of mechanical features to decide a genre. Games today, simply put, have everything in them. Absolutely everything. So if we at all want to keep genres as a way to identify and separate styles of games and gameplay, we need to do more than just follow technical specifications.

Unless, of course, we want to operate with "this is a 40%RPG, 20%FPS and 30% strategy, 10% platformer" game. But we don't. :)


Last edited by Beamboom on 8 Mar 2018 at 8:47 am UTC

Do continue the debate gentlemen .

I find it an interesting read


At the same time; things change. Everything, including language, evolves over time. And so do genres.

Quite wrong. What horror movie from 100 years ago would today no longer count as an horror movie? Maybe not scary any more, but still a horror movie.
Same is true for game genres. How are Wolfenstein 3D and the latest Call Of Duty not both FPS games? Assuming the latest CoD is actually first person, I lost interest in that series 10 years ago...
And how would the very first and the very recent Tomb Raider not both be in the same genre?
But, most importantly, why would you suddenly count two radically different games such as, say ADOM and Dishonored into the same genre? The gameplay is entirely different. And the gameplay is what defines the genre, and that can very much be quantified.
If you want to call one an RPG and the other an Action-RPG, fine. But just calling everything an RPG and being done with it shows an incredibly lazy mind.

Nope, genres do not change as time goes by. There is not a single example of this.
They are defined around the time they pop up and then remain.
And if something does not fit a genre, it is either a new genre or a mix.

It is as if you'd call every movie an action movie just because a person in it does an action.
It is ridiculous and should make it obvious something is wrong with your definition.

The interesting thing with this quote is that it seems that suddenly the tables are turned. It's YOU who's insisted on this game being a RPG based on your definitions, not me. I don't want to include this game into the framework of what a RPG is. But you, with your definitions, insist that it is so.

It is in fact me who say to you what you now say to me in your last sentence there. Quite interesting.

How does that turn the table around?
I said from the beginning that this game, by the logical definition of RPGs, is an RPG.
I also said that a game is NOT a pure RPG, just because it has some stats in it - which is what the comparison with action movies is about and in extension your comparison with a rally game.
Just because you play a driver* and your car has stats, does not make it an RPG.
*(which is very much debatable, since almost all rally games do not make this tangible at all, for example, who do play in Micro Machines and where is that person in the game?)

Furthermore, if we are to talk about the oldschool RPGs, I must admit (much to your pleasure now, I suspect) that I find many of the oldschool RPGs to in fact today more belong to the strategy bag than the rpg bag.
Times change!

Midlife crisis confirmed.
Sorry, this is so absurd that I can't think of anything else...

With RPGs I want to be immersed in a world. Roleplay, yes BE a character. In a strategy game I want to consider statistics, strategies and probability. i want to win. In a RPG I want to experience and evolve a character.

Your immersion is subjective and therefore irrelevant to definitions. Besides, you can get immersed in every game out there. All depends on the person.
And surely you are not suggesting a definition of RPG that is subjective to everyone, because then we'd be discussing opinions, and that is rather pointless.
Imagine Steam asking you how you feel about a game to determine its genre ;)

If you really think "this is not an RPG to me, but maybe to someone else", then we should stop, as I'm not usually in the mood for Hippie nonsense. I prefer cold facts over kindergarden nice words.

Unless, of course, we want to operate with "this is a 40%RPG, 20%FPS and 30% strategy, 10% platformer" game. But we don't.

We don't? That sounds to me like a useful definition that allows an image to be created in the mind of everyone who knows those four genres.
I mean, you could leave off the percentages and then we'd have a RPG-strategy-FPS-platformer. That would still not be entirely helpful, sure, but it is a very extreme case (in such, it is better to just watch a video). And it would be way more helpful than just saying "it's an RPG".

So... what is your definition of RPGs, then?
By everything you wrote so far, Sunless Skies should be an RPG to you. You do play a character (ship captain), who does have stats, portrait, etc., who can be evolved and the there are definitely quests and a story, if you require that for your definition.

And, no, "You know it when you see it", is not an answer, it's an excuse.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 8 Mar 2018 at 10:05 am UTC

At the same time; things change. Everything, including language, evolves over time. And so do genres.

Quite wrong. What horror movie from 100 years ago would today no longer count as an horror movie? Maybe not scary any more, but still a horror movie.

Of course. And the oldschool RPGs are still RPGs (come on...).
But genres do change. They typically expand. Look at music. How the rock genre has expanded over the years. Or even the newer genres, like techno. If we took a techno track of today and showed that to a techno fan twenty years ago, he'd probably define it as something else amongst the genres then. It doesn't mean the old music no longer belong to the genre, but one would problably want to separate them to a stack of their own, add "oldschool" in front, or "retro".

There's no reason to claim it's anything different when it comes to game genres, quite the contrary. "RPG" (or, as the true purists call them, "crpg") is a term that today covers both realtime and turn-based gameplay, various perspectives, team based, etc.
And we now in this dicussion call the roots of computer RPGs "oldschool RPGs". That's a rational thing to do, because the genre since then has evolved.

Same is true for game genres. How are Wolfenstein 3D and the latest Call Of Duty not both FPS games?

I don't even know how you came to this conclusion, so I'll skip this part of your post.

If you want to call one an RPG and the other an Action-RPG, fine. But just calling everything an RPG and being done with it shows an incredibly lazy mind.

Action rpg is a subgenre of RPG, a genre that also holds turn-based RPGs. Just like there's plenty subgenres to rock.

Nope, genres do not change as time goes by. There is not a single example of this.

A ridiculously bold statment.

They are defined around the time they pop up and then remain.
And if something does not fit a genre, it is either a new genre or a mix.

... Or a subgenre. Like rock, who has then evolved into a multitude of subgenres, all truly belonging to the main label "rock". Even the first rock'n'roll tracks from back in the days.

Just because you play a driver* and your car has stats, does not make it an RPG.

Play AS a driver. Your role is a driver, not a car. You're not a car in those games, you navigate the vehicle as a driver.

But obviously it's not a RPG.

Midlife crisis confirmed.
Sorry, this is so absurd that I can't think of anything else...

I knew you were going to like that. :)

But my point is, the RPG genre has evolved into being more about the characters and story, and less about the strategies and dice rolls.

Look at the latest X-com games. They are categorised as strategy, not RPG - even though they could just as well have been called "oldschool RPGs with a modern coat of paint": Turn based, team based, stat based, dice based, restricted/linear play fields, quests, grid based movements, world map, NPCs, it's got absolutely everything. But it's categorised under the label "strategy" today. And that's how I would describe those RPGs from back then too, to a new gamer today.

If you really think "this is not an RPG to me, but maybe to someone else", then we should stop, as I'm not usually in the mood for Hippie nonsense. I prefer cold facts over kindergarden nice words.

And I prefer that my opponents in a discussion at least TRY to understand what I'm saying, instead of constructing claims I never have expressed and make fun of those.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8 Mar 2018 at 12:40 pm UTC

Nope, genres do not change as time goes by. There is not a single example of this.

A ridiculously bold statment.

And yet one you failed to prove wrong.

New sub genres are new genres, they can be influenced by or derived from existing ones, sure.
But that doesn't change the fact that an Action-RPG is neither a pure RPG nor a pure Action game. It is its own new (sub) genre. Calling it RPG (or Action) only is simply not sufficient.
The fact that it came to be did not at all change the nature of either the RPG nor the Action genre.
Just like in programming, a class having child classes does not change the parent class.

They are defined around the time they pop up and then remain.
And if something does not fit a genre, it is either a new genre or a mix.

... Or a subgenre. Like rock, who has then evolved into a multitude of subgenres, all truly belonging to the main label "rock". Even the first rock'n'roll tracks from back in the days.

No, rock did not "evolve". Rock is rock, has always been (well, once it appeared), will always be.
New subgenres (and subgenres of subgenres) have sprung up, but calling any band/song/album of one those subgenres just "rock" does the actual thing as little justice as calling an Action-RPG just "RPG".

Besides, music genre definitions are even more messed up than game genres today...

But my point is, the RPG genre has evolved into being more about the characters and story, and less about the strategies and dice rolls.

No, what has changed is certainly not the RPG genre.
Instead, new subgenres (or mixes) have for the moment (and probably forever as they are easier to digest for most people) overtaken releases of the pure RPG genre.
But the fact that there still are actual RPGs being released shows that the more narrow definition of RPG is as valid today as it was 25 years ago.

Look at the latest X-com games. They are categorised as strategy, not RPG - even though they could just as well have been called "oldschool RPGs with a modern coat of paint": Turn based, team based, stat based, dice based, restricted/linear play fields, quests, grid based movements, world map, NPCs, it's got absolutely everything. But it's categorised under the label "strategy" today.

X-COM as well as the old UFO games have always been strategy games, never anything else.
And games like XCOM or Battle Brothers or similar ones are not RPGs because you do not play a tangible role in those games. In most of them, there isn't even the mention of a "you", and if it is, it is for story only, not gameplay.
You cannot even partake in battles yourself, you are kind of a commander behind the lines. As such, they are not RPGs just as rally games aren't.

And that's how I would describe those RPGs from back then too, to a new gamer today.

Then that new gamer would be in for a surprise if he played X-COM and then tried to play something like Dark Sun or Fallout.
It's not that they share absolutely nothing, but the gameplay focus is entirely different. And both Dark Sun and Fallout share way more with each other than any of them do with X-COM.

And I prefer that my opponents in a discussion at least TRY to understand what I'm saying, instead of constructing claims I never have expressed and make fun of those.

I do fully understand what you are saying.
It's just mostly wrong.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 8 Mar 2018 at 1:52 pm UTC

But the fact that there still are actual RPGs being released shows that the more narrow definition of RPG is as valid today as it was 25 years ago.

It actually doesn't show anything at all, other than that the original formula still is within the definition of the genre. As it obviously should be.

But we are practically down to semantics now, ("do a subgenre of a genre belong to that genre or is it a genre of its own"?) and that is a clear indicator that this lemon is now squeezed dry. I'm out. Thanks for your time. :)


Last edited by Beamboom on 8 Mar 2018 at 3:08 pm UTC