Talk:Tactical role-playing game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggested Merger[edit]

I think that the "RPG" label is diluted enough as it is, and it is only spreading the confusion to spread the label across more and more game genres that, while containing some of the same elements as individual games in the RPG genre, nevertheless do not contain any actual role playing. It's fine to continue to use this term if that's what people know it as, but we should merge it under a more appropriate genre (i.e., turn-based tactics) that is a more accurate and less confusing classification. --The Yar 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical RPG is the term that people that people who actually play these games use to describe the genre. I think it would just confuse things if it was merged into turn-based tactics. You say Tactical RPG and fans of the genre instantly know what you're talking about (games like Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea, Shining Force, Super Robot Wars, Summon Night, etc.) whereas turn-based tactics is a really vague term.
Tactical RPGs contain just as much roleplaying as a traditional console RPGs. You may argue that console RPGs aren't really role-playing, but that's highly debatable. In any case, it's the term that is used for the genre whether you like it or not. --RDespair, June 16th 2006
I merged turn based tactical into this article a few days ago. No point in keeping a term only few people use vs. one that most people recognize, including the gaming press. Danorux 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states: "It is generally accepted that Nintendo released the first tactical RPG, Fire Emblem for the Famicom (NES), created by Intelligent Systems." but Pool of Radiance was first released in 1988. It was a story-driven RPG with a tactical, turn-based combat system that shares similar game mechanics to the later console SRPGs. Is there a reason why the gold box SSI RPGs would not count as Tactical role-playing games? -- Biclops, August 28 2006
I think it's simply the fact that you will not find any gaming press or web page that classifies the game as such. Tactical RPGs are essentially only console games -- this definition may not be entirely satisfactory but the Wikipedia article should describe how the term is actually used by gamers, not an ideal.
Anyone want to second the endorsement of Pool of Radiance? If so, I will add it to the category page. SharkD 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's way too late, but there are games that do fit in the turn-based tactics genre but not the T/RPG genre. SharkD 04:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some real-time games that could be considered T/RPGs. SharkD 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TRPG is quite distinct a genre from RPG, and also distinct enough to be kept as separate from the turn-based tactics article. However, the article is a bit confused and claims many games that are not TRPGs. T/S RPGs are a sepecialised subgenre to turn-based tactics games basically populated (and defined) by being battle-focused, relatively small-scoped adaptations of popular japanese RPG franshises. Miqademus 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't the best criteria, but Pool of Radiance doesn't look like a TRPG. Certainly not from these screenshots [1]--Tyrfing 16:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy RPG[edit]

I have never heard the term "tactical RPG" used outside of this article, only "strategy RPG". Just look at the hits for each term on Google:

"strategy rpg"- 19,200,000

"tactical rpg"- 3,320,000

"Strategy RPG" is by far the more oft-used term. So what's going on here? Phediuk 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Strategy RPG is the norm.
In all honesty, I'd rather have the entire article merged into turn-based strategy, but strategy RPG is by far more acceptable than 'tactical rpg' which probably wasn't created until Final Fantasy Tactics. --Yayza 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Switch the name to Strategy RPG. Don't merge, however. --GlitchBob dbug 20:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. I think that "Tactics RPG" and "Strategy RPG" are synonymous. I do think that "Startegy RPG is a bit more common, though. -SharkD 19:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, as differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand. By that definition, Disgaea is a tactical RPG, while Ogre Battle may be considered a strategy RPG. So basically we need two articles. That said, do we really need to be reminded that multiple games in the genre are self-declared tactics games? FF Tactics, La Pucelle Tactics, Tactics Ogre, Suikoden Tactics... Danorux 05:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is original research. If 'Strategy RPG' is the more popular term, then that is the one we should use. SharkD 02:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the genre makes more use of "strategy" or "tactics" as the terms are defined isn't as important as whether the term is more commonly used. Using another game genre as an example, "real time strategy" (RTS) is the proper term for a genre of games that are common only by a similar tactical element, whether or not the gameplay contains a real "strategic" element. For games in this section such as Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea, Gamespot shows these types of games as either "Role Playing" or "Fantasy Turn-Based Strategy", Gamefaqs shows them as "Fantasy Turn-Based Strategy", and IGN lists them as "Strategy RPG". "Strategy" is used much more often to discribe their genre than "Tactics", even if the latter is more commonly used in the game titles themselves. I'd say that says a lot about which is the more accepted term. 72.194.69.219 21:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking sides whether to rename the page or not, but regardless of which name is made "real" a corresponding redirect should be created. Both names "exist" and refer to basically the same game. If a distinction is to be made it really should be as sections within the same article. Also, T/S RPGs are a sepecialised subgenre to turn-based tactics games basically populated (and defined) by being battle-focused, relatively small-scoped adaptations of popular japanese RPG franshises. Miqademus 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few links[edit]

I added a few additional links to PC tactics games, as I thought the platform was a bit under-represented. -SharkD 19:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of Chaos[edit]

Would Lords of Chaos (video game) be an example of this genre?--Malcohol 12:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. But, the game Incubation certainly is. -SharkD 07:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:[edit]

There has been a push to try and develop multiplayer games of this genre, and section on that would be nice.

Could you provide some examples? The only ones I can think of are Jagged Alliance: Deadly Games, MegaMek and UFO 2000. -SharkD 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid comparisons[edit]

I believe some of the comparisons made with turn-based strategy are invalid. Namely, the second and third comparisons. The reason I state this is because, in some T/RPGs, characters are allocated an Action Point pool which can be expended on any number of actions as long as the total points do not exceed the limit. Also, in some T/RPGs, turns are not split into clearly demarcated "enemy" and "player" phases. Rather, each character proceeds with its turn based on a separate "initiative" score, like in D&D. -SharkD 22:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phase-based games[edit]

I'm wondering if phase-based ("WeGo") tactics games such as Laser Squad Nemesis and Combat Mission should also be listed. Personally, I think they shouldn't be; but, they have nowhere else to go. -SharkD 09:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't be. It's better to place them among TBSs, than here, for they have no RPG elements. --Andrei Knight 03:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

famicom wars came before fire emblem and isn't this game an srpg -Unsigned

Famicom Wars isn't an RPG. --Tyrfing 16:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of one of the real proginators of TRPG's, Wizards Crown, its this combat system that was the precursor to the Gold Box games combat engines. Wizards Crown came out in 1986, predating the 1990 nintendo release, and is vastly more tactical than Ultima III. Yakumo (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the game in the 'Genre blurring' section. However, I don't think consensus exists yet to call such games 'Tactical RPGs'. SharkD (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was really the first to combine war gaming + rpging to create a tactical rpg. The problem with 'consensus' is that this article is _really_ skewed toward only console games, sure pc games get a passing mention but only in a minor game list bullet points type note. Never mind that the genres started there first, all the text of the article is console based. Wizard's Crown is more tactical than Bahamuts Lagoon. The whole article has some odd npov to it. Master of Monsters was not the first hex based system, the games originating article for said game doesn't even mention that. Laser Squad is also one of the grand daddies of the genre but that I guess is a blurred line from Tactical RPG and Turn Based Tactics.. On the whole I just feel this is all too console biased.76.6.223.32 (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of Ultima III in the article as the predecessor to the SRPG/TRPG genre is ridiculous. The actual inspiration for Fire Emblem is Koei's war simulation games. The Wars series was directly inspired by the grid based gameplay of the Koei games and Fire Emblem was derived from a combination of taking Wars, a fantasy setting, and named/fixed units instead of generics to create the unique gameplay that comprises SRPGs/TRPGs.

SRPGs/TRPGs are *not* just games with grid-based combat and RPG-style characters. They are any kind of war simulation game with RPG elements. Therefore games like Ogre Battle, which was marketed as a "Simulation/RPG" in Japan are included in the genre even though they use realtime gameplay.

Dofus: notable?[edit]

I think that Dofus is a notable game, being that it is the only MMOTRPG that I know of. However, I haven't personally played it long enough to determine whether it is notable for other reasons, as well. SharkD 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've never heard of it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a somewhat-played online tactical RPG. It's unique, but I don't think it's that notable within the genre, even though it's sort of nifty. Voretus 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dofus IS noticeable...[edit]

I would like to disagree on the fact that Dofus IS a noticeable game. 2 million players beg to differ with your opinions, and I also need to highlight that there is no other tactical (turn-based) game out there that is browser based and an MMORPG in its own right at the same time. And if you can find another game tht is "MANGA"-based please let me know.

I would like to ask for permission to re-add Dofus to its list, but I will not push the matter. After all I am a simple player of Dofus, not the owner or the maker or an employee of Ankama Studios.

An independent survey has been made by MMORPG.com (after reading behaviour guidleines in wikia I will not post the link to the survey here) but Dofus is one of the few games whose player average age is not under 25. --Cordially, Abelius 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When determining whether a game is notable or not I always consider two things only: the game's popularity and its feature set. If it's not popular or doesn't have unique gameplay then it's not notable. Art doesn't count. SharkD 10:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2 million players can't be wrong. And seeing how Dofus is pretty unique (as Abelius pointed out, it's the only MMOTRPG that's anywhere near notable), I'd say it belongs on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.4.190 (talk • contribs)

And whoever has never heard of the term "tactical RPG", makes me think he or she lives in a cocoon, or on St. Helena Island... --Cordially, Abelius 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be notable, not noticeable. Two million players does not make it notable on Wikipedia. For example, a game can be notable if it wins a real non-trivial award. Like, if PC Gamer gave a game with 5000 players game of the year, then the game is notable. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove comparisons?[edit]

I think that the points raised in the comparisons sections are shady at best. I'm sure it would not be too hard to find exceptions for nearly every point. SharkD 10:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked through the sections and exceptions are common, not just there. I would agree with removing them unless there are some universal things that are different, and even then the relevance would be shaky. Voretus 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there were universal things. E.g. Tactical RPGs really tend to represent more massive battles. Then, in traditional comsole RPGs there is no free moving as in TRPGs. TRPGs really focused on battles. There is really a grid system in most 2D TRPGs and turn-based strategies. Really, WHY did you remove everything? I'll get everything back and you may remove what's not true. --Andrei Knight 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find an exception for every point you raise:
  • Tactical RPGs appear on the PC as well.
  • Many RPGs feature combat on the same screen. TOEE and SS do not use an isometric grid.
  • There are real-time tactical RPGs as well. UFO: Aftermath, UFO: Afterlight, Brigade E5: Jagged Union, JAZZ: Hired Guns, NWN2 (if you stretch things a bit). I'd rather not discuss real-time games here (I'm biased against them), as they already have their own article.
  • There are many RPGs that allow for great flexibility when creating a character. Fallout, Arcanum.
  • In FOT, JA2 TOEE, and SS the number of actions you can take are limited by the number of APs you have.
  • In TOEE there are no phases. An initiative score is calculated for each unit.
  • In JA2 and SS you can attack units at unlimited range.
  • JA2 and FO/FOT have no classes.
  • JA2 has a strategic layer and a tactical layer.
  • JA2, FOT and SS have no magic points or elemental properties.
  • You can't change equipment in Battle for Wesnoth.
Your comparisons are only valid when comparing console RPGs to console T/RPGs. Also, this article was merged with the Turn-based tactics article; so it may reflect some characteristics that may seem more like wargames. SharkD 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between RPGs and Tactical RPGs then? There must be some, don't you think so? --Andrei Knight 00:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, hardly anyone would say that JA2 is a tactical RPG. I think you mix here two (perhaps even three) different genres. --Andrei Knight 01:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the section below for new discussion as to what makes a TRPG. Basically, what it boils down to is this: Is the game tactical? Is the game an RPG? SharkD 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Temple of Elemental Evil a Tactical RPG?[edit]

I think it is not and I have removed it from here. Fell free to argue.--Andrei Knight 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All tactical RPGs are descendents of table-top role-playing games, such as Chainmail, which were mainly tactical in their original form. Indeed the very format of a T/CRPG is like a tabletop RPG in its appearance, pacing and rule structure."
ToEE's rules were adapted very closely from Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition. If you'd read the article you'd know that pen & paper RPGs are where this genre got its gameplay characteristics from in the first place. SharkD 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing other games[edit]

I recently added the Avernum and Geneforge series to Category:Tactical role-playing games and was wondering if they, as well as the first two games in the Fallout series, should be removed. I'm torn as to whether they are or are not "tactical" enough. SharkD 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Avernum and Geneforge series, as well as Age of Decadence. The first two Fallout games are no longer listed either. SharkD 05:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Wesnoth should be removed, as it is very much a turn based strategy game (with no added tactical layer, like in X-COM or similar games), and the article provided as proof is on a random download site (not the developers site, which states it is a "turn-based tactical strategy", as does our own article) A1s (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New comparisons[edit]

To replace the old comparisons section, maybe we can think of some new, key points that can be used as guidelines when defining the genre. Some ideas that come to mind:

  • [edit] Tactical combat must constitute a major part of the gameplay experience.
  • Must have some form of character advancement.
  • Terrain must play a noticable role.
  • Must have control of a party.
  • Must be turn-based (I'm biased)

I can already imagine games that would break these rules and still fit my conception of what a T/RPG is. ToEE, for instance, has no terrain modifiers; yet, it is very tactical in every other respect. SharkD 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that all tactical RPGs are turn-based; otherwise they'd just be strategy games like StarCraft. The other things I can think of exceptions to. The Game Boy Advance game Advance Wars has no system of unit advancement, if I recall correctly. There's quite a few with no terrain modifiers. I can't think of any right off the bat, but I can recall playing a freeware tactical RPG a few years back that put you in control of only one unit with varying abilities. Voretus 15:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Real-time tactics has its own article and lists several games that might fit the genre. I still resist including them. SharkD 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom Force is a good example of a real-time game that would fit the genre. SharkD 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Magi is an example of a game that is both real-time and doesn't feature a party. SharkD 04:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by tactical combat? I think it must be explained, because the term is too vague. --Andrei Knight 02:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I say combat (or a game in general) is tactical, I mean that it requires contemplative thought for success. A game has to reach a certain threshold in its tactical-ness before I consider it, though. SharkD 15:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are too vague again. How are you going to measure the requirement of the contemplative thought? Your definition is too abstract. There must be something cocrete. E.g. more freedom of moving etc., more massive battlesthan in RPGs, units which demand more attention than in TBSs etc. Some of these things were mentioned in old comparisons and they were quite good, I still think. --Andrei Knight 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the things you mention require the player to contemplate more. Yet they are, individually, not shared by enough games. I just don't feel there are any "concrete" things that distinguish the genre as well (i.e. without exception) as the "abstract" ones do. SharkD 04:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Box games[edit]

We need a short section on Gold Box games in the PC games section. SharkD 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SharkD 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where this went as it's appropriate for the article, but I added a short description that can be elaborated upon if anyone so chooses. 72.226.25.122 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turn-based tactics[edit]

I resurrected the old turn-based tactics page. It now links to here and to the tactical wargame page. We'll now have to debate whether a lot of these games fit in this article, or the tactical wargame article. SharkD 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To cut a long story short, what's the difference between tectical RPGs and turn-base tactics? I could place many tactical RPGs among turn-base tactics. What are your main criteria? --Andrei Knight 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tactical RPGs may include games that are real-time. Turn-based tactics may include games that don't have RPG characteristics. SharkD 03:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understood, the only difference between so called turn-based tactics and TBSs is that turn basic tactics is concentrated on small-scale confrontations. Is it enough to estalish a genre? And do think that games with RPG elements belong there as well as games without them?--Andrei Knight 03:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the scale of operations that distinguishes the genres--it's the degree to which combat is abstracted or simulated. To quote this discussion page: A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, as differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand. Strategy deals more with long-term planning, including diplomacy and logistics. Strategy games without tactical elements often abstract combat to a degree where combat is resolved using only a single mouse-click. Tactical games deal with combat more directly. Note that games can fall into both the Strategy and Tactics categories if they contain elements of both (JA2 and X-COM for instance). I also don't think RPG characteristics add or subtract to a game's strategic or tactical nature. Finally, the genre is already established. The term "tactical" has been used in conjunction with wargames for as long, if not longer, than with RPGs (read the wargaming article). SharkD 19:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find it difficult to apply analytical criteria to distinguish between TBTs and TRPGs; the latter is a subgenre of TBTs, and not really an analytical but rather a "popular" or "colloquial" one. The basic difference is that TRPGs are team-based battle-oriented adaptations of principally japanese RPGs. As such it is not a "true" (distinguishable) genre of its own, but distinct enough as an alive distinction within a genre to warrant its own article. However, this should be mentioned in the article. Miqademus 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have to make the point that TRPGs may include real-time games, as well. Freedom Force is a good example of a game that is real-time and would fit in the genre. SharkD 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Acid[edit]

Some mention of Metal Gear Acid series should be made. They use an interesting system whereby you gain, over time, collectible cards which improve your character's stats. The series also features tactical gameplay. SharkD 03:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have phrased this in the form of a question. I haven't personally played the game, so there may be reasons not to mention it. SharkD 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Why does this article have so much non-free images? I commons we have a lot of Video game screenshots which should be used first. Free games such as The Battle for Wesnoth are also preferable. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 10:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

usage of "CRPG"[edit]

Many times in the article, the term "CRPG" is used without explanation. Either make it clear that CRPG and TRPG are synonymous in that context, or change the wording accordingly...or at least specify where you mean Console or Computer RPG. As a gamer who doesn't know the sub-genres of RPGs, I was quite confused. yuor faec (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bahamut Lagoon Battle.gif[edit]

The image Image:Bahamut Lagoon Battle.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japan vs US History[edit]

Question: Why does this seem like the gene was started in Japan when I read this page? In the PC section it acts as if the US games of this type were not fantasy based, then lists many non-fantasy ones, while ignoring many of the so-called "classics". Anyone who played\imported games in the late 80s should remember the popularity ofmany PC games over in Japan. Pony Canyon for example ported Pool of Radiance to famicom, and it's combat's gameplay is that of a tactical RPG. And the first Neverwinter Nights (The SSI\AOL one) is the first graphical MMORPG, so that would also make it the first online tactical one. Seems very NPOV to me right now without some explaining. 76.181.3.165 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gold Box games are mentioned in the "Genre blurring" section. I'll look into Neverwinter Nights further. As for the Japanese-centric view, the article originally mentioned only Japanese games. No Western games (aside from Ultima III and Chainmail, a table-top roleplaying game) were mentioned at all. I haven't found much info on Japanese TRPGs being inspired by Western games. Also, except for X-COM, Western TRPGs never reached the same popularity as the Japanese games. SharkD (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned NWN in the article. SharkD (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say only X-COM reached the popularity of the Japanese games, the Gold Boxs were pretty well known for their time. (And I wouldn't call X-com an RPG personally). It's just the Western ones died out before the gene was well-known; but they were huge for their time. 76.181.3.165 (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well what I meant to say was that no TRPG since X-COM has reached a popularity comparable to the Eastern counterparts. SharkD (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the fact that many of the Gold Box games were released in Japan, as well. SharkD (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of this talk is ridiculous. Grid-based combat does not define a TRPG, or maybe it does, but it does not define an SRPG, which is the genre that was started in Japan. All an SRPG is, is a war simulation game with RPG elements. SSI's AD&D based games like Pool of Radiance are obviously not war simulation games. PC War games that predate SRPGs are not SRPGs because they lack RPG elements (such as having fixed units that can gain experience through repeated combat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.60 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out some PC war games mentioned in the article that don't feature unit advancement? The only ones I can think of are specified as being "similar" to SRPGs, but not actually being ones. SharkD (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vantage Master Online is no MMORPG[edit]

I tried out Vantage Master Online today. It is not an MMORPG! The only way to play online is via a direct internet connection. It's this typical "one player hosts and the other player entersthe IP address" thing. I will change that MMORPG to something else, but I'm not sure where I should place it. It's a game like Pox Nora or Battle for Wesnoth. Sorry, I don't know much about tactical RPGs. 85.127.114.209 (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the correction. SharkD (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-Com is not an RPG[edit]

X-com is an T-RPG. My old PC gamer magazines list X-com as a turn based strategy game. This is the first time i've heard X-com listed as a TRPG. You do not play any "roles here" You manage an organization, command troops and its resources. Its combat system is turn based strategy game. Just because infantry have stats or improve does not make it an RPG. The game may have an RPG elements but its core is a strategy game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.43.103 (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be OK to move X-COM to the "Genre Blurring" section, next to Rebelstar and Laser Squad. The game should, however, be mentioned in the article because of the huge influence it had on (Western) games. SharkD (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed accordingly. SharkD  Talk  10:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of red links[edit]

I think the red links should be re-added. The games themselves certainly meet notability requirements, and red links encourage growth of the wiki. SharkD (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey guys[edit]

There're some major issues in this article that need addressing and I was wondering if anyone wanted to help out : )  ?EVAUNIT神の人間の殺害者 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the news[edit]

Popularity section[edit]

I'm sort of stumped to do with it at the moment, but I think it should be merged with the history section for now (makes sense right?). Any objections?  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I'm not really sure. There's like a general history section with specific history subsections under it. I dunno. Any ideas out there??EVAUNIT神になった人間 20:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it originally was part of the history section. Either way, I think the move would be fine. SharkD  Talk  03:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SharkD  Talk  10:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whole thing needs to be gutted[edit]

I've never read so much nonsense japan-centric garbage. ALmost every video game related article on wikipedia is a joke that looks like it was written quite jingoistically, completely ignoring that japanese games followed and imitated western games in all RPGS, tactical and otherwise.13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

and your source? You are simply showing western biased and thought everything must be invented by the west and other have to copy from them w/o their own mind. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't agree with the original poster, I'd love to clean up this article and find some good, detailed sources along the way. But only if anyone else'd be interested. ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 19:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty WTF. SRPG/TRPG just seems to me to be Japanese turn based tactics games but with a ton of animes thrown in. I've never heard the term T/SRPG used for games like X-Com, Silent Storm, Fallout Tactics or Battle for Wesnoth. And then Steel Panthers gets called into it as well somehow, along with Squad Leader and just what the hell? There's tons of table top war games with experience and units that can be promoted to veteran class, giving them increased stats, are they now SRPGs too? What a load of nonsense. Wikipedia is full of the animes and even our beloved video games will be infected by the curse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.30.248 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RPG component allocation and interpretation.[edit]

"Tactical RPG" and "Wargame with RPG elements" are different genres, although commonly misinterpreted as one. TRPG could be a RPG composed of tactical and RP "screens"/"maps" - Shining Force/Just Breed. Also any RPG where there's an option to move the camera independently from characters, and to move characters separately (a "tactical element"), could count as TRPG if the tactical element is deep enough. Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age can be counted as tactics-enabled RPG (between RPG and TRPG). in RPG games, there are two kinds of RPG characters: "Avatar" and "Companion". "Companions" are full RPG characters, and sometimes the only difference between them and "Avatars" is that they join the Avatar. JRPG's rarely featured "avatars", even character naming was not very common. In Spellforce, some territories are played as RTS, while others are played as Real-Time Tactics. Quality of the overworld may vary from mere "waypoints" in Baldur's Gate, to a full grid with movement representation (Fallout). some large-scale TBS's may have RPG characters (Warlords II, Master of Magic, Age of Wonders). Yura87 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Also any RPG where there's an option to move the camera independently from characters, and to move characters separately (a "tactical element"), could count as TRPG if the tactical element is deep enough. Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age can be counted as tactics-enabled RPG (between RPG and TRPG)."
Yes, exactly this is explained in the "Genre blurring" section. SharkD  Talk  00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny of an Emperor isn't the game the author was thinking about...[edit]

In the 8-bit section, the game Destiny of an Emperor by Capcom is a straight-up RPG rather than an SRPG. The author was thinking of the similarly themed but functionally radically different Romance of the Three Kingdoms by Koei. The reference cited is where the mistake happens, so while the author was ignorant in not making this correction himself, it's ultimately the fault of his source. AutomatonOmega (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Destiny of an Emperor also calls the game a tactical RPG. Dunno what to do. SharkD  Talk  20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8-bit origins[edit]

Might want to mention Laser Squad, a precursor to X-COM in this section. SharkD  Talk  22:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SRPG and Strategy with RPG elements: A thicker line[edit]

  1. There are RPG's with tactical encounters.
  2. There are RPG's where each map (gaming) (sometimes excluding towns) is a "scenario" of the underlying tactical game
  3. And there are strategies with RPG elements (sometimes experience and/or equipment for leaders), happening in a sequence of levels.

Examples:

  • Fallout (and Jagged Alliance) - every module and sub-module is a turn-based tactical scenario (though Fallout 1 and 2 have AI-controlled companions, with player only giving orders prior to battle).
  • Baldur's Gate/Spellforce (whole series) - real-time, reduced role of overworld in BG, no overworld in Spellforce.
  • Allods (whole series) - single-player campaign is a RPG with RTS modules (except towns), netplay is like that in Warlords: Battlecry.

While some may say a RPG made of tactical scenarios may actually belong to strategic games, it is still a RPG - as ionomic system/inventory. If free roaming is removed and the levels are sequential (even with a branching storyline), the game is a "Strategy with RPG elements".

All of the above is applicable to both turn-based and real-time strategical/tactical games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.181.9.98 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. SharkD  Talk  10:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A load of nonsense and original research[edit]

TRPG and SRPG seems to be mostly a JRPG convention and most of the titles listed in the PC and blurred genre sections are not either, especially dumb are mentions of games like Steel Panthers, there are tons of wargames that have XP and unit progression, are we going to list every single one of them? I've never heard games like X-Com or Jagged Alliance referred to as Tactical RPGS, they are strategy games with slight RPG aspects, plenty of game genres have RPG aspects and yet they are not classified in these weird Japanese gaming categories. Are EA Sports and 2K sports games with career modes now to be called SportsRPG? No they're still sports games and don't need some weird new genre. And what the hell are classic PC RPG games doing in here? Stuff like Ultima have always been considered just hard core classic RPGS. This article is 90% useless garbage and needs to be sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.30.220 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember an interview with developer Ian Currie where he stated that he considered Jagged Alliance to be an RPG *first* and a strategy game *second*. As for your issue with the nomenclature, we have sources such as Joystiq's Rowan Kaiser and 1UP.com's Kat Bailey calling the game "one of the greatest tactical RPGs of all time" and saying, "Basically, Jagged Alliance represents the western-style of PC tactical RPGs, which also includes classics like X-Com", respectively.[2][3]. Do you have any sources? SharkD  Talk  11:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content[edit]

Role-playing strategy games are often described as massive multi-player role playing games which incorporate strategic elements, however the subtle difference between mmorpgs and mmogs are often over-looked. The Phantasy Star Online (2000) series was the first to deviate from its elements of role-playing with mini-games and recreational activities such as soccer and dozens of downloadable challenges to even a battle mode. However close it may be to an role-playing strategy game it still incorporates the objective mode as the primary method and story to the gameplay and most consider it to be an mmorpg rather than an mmog. Games such as Happy Wars (2012) are very similar, they have a turn base platform and quests with objectives. Although they are very reminiscent of an RPG game in story mode, the objective mode has no exploration elements and its quests are too short eg they have hit-and-run tactics in combining functions of action rpgs with real-time strategy games. These thin difference barriers in game play at times are able to change the genre completely, due to the overwhelming way the game feels, but really due to the fact that the major function of the game plays as a tactical rpg. Most online games are considered mmogs because they have strategic elements to the gameplay such as capture the base, or a turn-based platform as opposed to exploration as a major aspect of the developer's game. --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Niemti: "Role-playing strategy games" don't necessarily have multiplayer modes. I don't understand the rest of what you're trying to say. Phantasy Star Online and Happy Wars are not mentioned anywhere in the article, so I don't see why you're taking offense. SharkD  Talk  04:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pickford Bros/ Zed Two/ JoWood's 'Future Tactics: Uprising'[edit]

FT:U (mis-labeled a 'Tactical Shooter', but correctly a T/SRPG) is a notable Western game in the 6th/7th generation gap the article denotes between Eastern developed Sakura Wars and Valkyria Chronicles, where the introduction of action-game-like elements to an otherwise strict T/SRPG formula was was produced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.85.153 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the talk page for Future Tactics: The Uprising for someone to clarify this. I haven't played the game, so I can't tell how many 'action elements' this game has. SharkD  Talk  01:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not English[edit]

"Western tactical RPGs are mostly produced for PC and few in console platform, however it was less popular. Most western developers argue it still belongs in other genres. The term also was unwidely use for some western tactical RPGs video game, mostly they are labelled as strategy game."

Can this be rewritten in English? Is it even worth keeping? SharkD  Talk  01:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010 PC section[edit]

I would like to refer User: SharkD to the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, specifically item number 7: "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, bear in mind that others may find something useful in what you remove." Many people consider these game TRPGs. I don't know why you think CRPG and TRPG are necessarily separate considering CRPG is a broad category. Either way I provided citations from reputable sources. Please stop deleting my entire edit just because you disagree. I did see at least one of the games could not be found to be listed as TRP on a credible source, but the rest are (I will delete that ONE). You seem to be harping on my original source. If it is that important for you to separate CRPG and TRPG, we can get rid of that article but the games stand, with credible citations to prove them.. MrGWillickers (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a "Genre blurring" section for CRPGs with heavy tactical combat. They do not belong in the main portion of the article.

"Also, Wasteland 2 [1], Invisible, Inc.,[2] The Dark Eye: Blackguards [3] and Divinity: Original Sin[4] are all Tactical RPGs with successful releases in 2014. Largely due to these games 2014 has been called "The cRPG Renaissance" [5]."

  1. ^ http://www.windowscentral.com/review-fill-post-apocalyptic-void-wasteland-2-xbox-one
  2. ^ http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/06/04/game-of-the-month-june-invisible-inc/
  3. ^ http://www.ign.com/blogs/spartacan/2014/01/19/blackguards-adds-another-great-trpg-to-steam
  4. ^ http://gamepinion.org/2015/11/14/review-divinity-original-sin-multiplatform/
  5. ^ Thorman, Peter. "2014: the first year of the CRPG renaissance". PC Gamer. Retrieved 5 December 2015.
Windows Central and gamepinion.org are not considered reliable sources as per WP:VG/S. The IGN link is just some user's blog, so also is not a RS. Further, to claim an article that also discusses Risen 3, Might and Magic X and Dark Souls is somehow saying a CRPG renaissance is "largely due" to TRPGs is inaccurate. You have to stick with what the sources actually say, not what you think they imply. Lastly, your reference does not even mention Invisible, Inc., so it cannot be covered by the citation. SharkD  Talk  21:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fin. Like I said I'm willing to discuss the CRPG renaissance line. It's out of place. Okay. But those games ARE TRPG and those sources do say that. MrGWillickers (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RS and specifically WP:VG/S. The sources I mentioned do not meet reliability standards for Wikipedia, and more specifically, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games standards. Meaning they cannot be used as a citation in this article. You are going to have to find sources that meet these criteria. SharkD  Talk  04:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Tactical role-playing game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline proposal[edit]

Hi folks, as I don't really want to spend a day for nothing, I wanted to know if you are actualy interessted and would accept a timeline placing the games mentionned in the history section based on their original release date ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu404 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tactical role-playing game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tactical role-playing game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tactical role-playing game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima 3[edit]

@87.210.7.191: I think Ultima 3 is relevant to the article. And I have a source that proves it. Please provide some evidence that it isn't. SharkD  Talk  00:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source: Beyond that, however, you can also draw a line without too much trouble from Ultima III's combat style to Japanese tactical RPGs like Fire Emblem, Shining Force, and Tactics Ogre.. SharkD  Talk  00:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another source, quote: "Dragon and Princess / ドラゴンアンドプリンセス is often pointed as the first RPG made in Japan, and it's particularly interesting for being a party-based game with top-down tactical turn-based combat (before Ultima III popularized such combat system), but at its core it's a text-adventure game ..."[4] SharkD  Talk  14:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The USGamer source is pretty explicit that it was an early tactical RPG and an influence on the genre. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't go as far as calling Ultima III a "tactical RPG". (It is much more than that!) But it was highly influential. SharkD  Talk  06:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tale of Wuxia (2016)[edit]

I want to add this awesome game to the "Genre Blurring" section, but no English site has reviewed it yet! Arrrgghh! SharkD  Talk  04:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Tactical role-playing game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tactical_role-playing_game&oldid=1198995923"