I know blizzard (main) was in anaheim. just south (and sprawling with, but in orange county so nobody sane would ever go there) of los angeles. might be what you’re thinking of? but also you could be right, and it was in, like, glendale or some shit.
Blizzard North (formerly known as Condor) was an American video game development studio based in San Mateo, California. The studio was the Bay Area division of Blizzard Entertainment, known for its Diablo series. The company was originally based in Redwood City, California, before moving a short distance away to San Mateo, with Blizzard proper being based in Irvine, southern California.
Yes, Anaheim is in Orange County, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Orange County certainly has some nasty sprawl, but it also has some nice beaches.
I don’t like any part of CA between SF and LA (San Diego is nice, as are parts north of SF), but Orange County really doesn’t stand out to me as particularly bad. It’s better than LA County in many ways. But the region has some decent geography, so I like to visit occasionally (I live out of state, but my in-laws live on the edge of LA County and Orange County).
wow, not even monterrey? san jose? does oakland count?
the problem with OC is fascism and the worst christians, and how they build their enclaves. go there five hundred years ago and its probably my fourth or fifth favorite part of the continent.
Yup, Oakland and everything in that area counts. I’ll even throw in Sacramento.
I’m sure there are decent spots here and there, but I really don’t like visiting any part of it. My in-laws really want us to move there, but I’ve told them CA is off the table. I hate the traffic, people, smog (LA only), and sheer amount of litter. And yes, all of those apply to SF, except the smog. Oh, and transit totally sucks, though it’s a bit better in SF.
The weather is and geography are both nice, but the rest absolutely sucks. If they fix their transit issues, I’d consider visiting more often, and maybe even moving there. But as long as I have to deal with the sprawl and all the nonsense that comes with it, I’m not going to.
I’m currently in Utah, and apart from seasonal smog (gets really bad during inversion season), it’s a really nice place to live. Transit kinda sucks, but at least the transit that’s there is usable and goes to good places. I’m probably going to move away eventually (looking at North Carolina), but I’m really enjoying the mountains for now.
Eh, I haven’t had any real issues there, aside from the stuff I hate about California in general. It’s just… wall to wall suburbia. So, pretty bland, but honestly, that’s probably where I’d live if I had to live somewhere in the greater LA area. And I’d complain constantly about the state of mass transit (and probably live near one of the Metrolink lines).
WoW was pretty good, too. Maybe too good. It had my hyper focus for like 4 years. I wish I could get a tenth as into games now as I was into WoW about 20 years ago.
I don’t think those genres are mutually exclusive. I haven’t played RDR1 but RDR2 is definitely an Action-Adventure RPG. You level up Arthur’s stats throughout the game and can choose different moral paths that affect the ending. That’s playing a role.
Likewise, I haven’t played RDR2 (started, but never got past the first 30 min or so), but RDR1 is pretty much just GTA in the wild west. You can buy stuff (like GTA), but I don’t recall any stats to speak of, it’s very much an action-adventure. Wikipedia claims RDR2 is an action-adventure, so I assume it’s closer to the Yakuza series in terms of character customization than RPGs, and Yakuza games are very much action-adventure (despite having some skills to level up).
There isn’t really a single, clear definition of “RPG” because it’s a really big genre, and a lot of games have taken mechanics that used to define RPGs. What defines it for me is whether the development of the character (in terms of stats, equipment, etc) is central to the gameplay.
For example, Elder Scrolls games are absolutely RPGs. You customize a character, assign stats, collect equipment, and game interactions are largely based on stats. The whole focus of the game is on that character development. JRPGs push the limits of an RPG somewhat because there’s a lot less player interaction with the stat systems (i.e. number just goes up), but the gameplay is highly dependent on those stats. As you stray further, we get into ARPGs, which frequently focus more on the action than the role-playing aspects, but the role-playing aspects are still very central to the game (e.g. Diablo, Ys, etc).
RDR, on the other hand, doesn’t really rely on stats for gameplay. You can completely ignore the stats and enjoy the game. There also aren’t really any meaningful choices when it comes to how the player develops the character. Yeah, I guess if you do bad stuff you’ll get a bounty or whatever, but that’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about gating off parts of the games because you chose to pursue one stat over another.
A lot of games borrow elements from RPGs (e.g. looting, skill progression, etc), so there’s no clear definition that clearly delineates which ones are or are not part of a given genre. Genre labels are supposed to be informative about what to expect in a game, and me describing RDR as an action-adventure game is a lot more informative than calling it an RPG.
There are no hard and fast rules about assigning genres, it’s more about which genre is it closest to. And the closer you get to D&D, the more it resembles an RPG.
Stats don’t make a game an RPG tho, but they’re a common element. A game may borrow some aspects of RPGs, but the core of the game needs to be those RPG elements to be an RPG.
RDR is an action-adventure game at its core, any stats or equipment is just tacked on.
Isn’t RDR exactly as much of an RPG as Mass Effect. Neither gives you any real control over the main story, though I guess Mass Effect makes you think you do better. The sidequests are about as open, and neither do you get to choose your character.
I don’t know if I do actually think RDR is an RPG, but that opinion is shared for Mass Effect, The Witcher, and so many others. They’ve taken the ability point systems from RPGs, but they’re still action adventure games with RPG mechanics.
I consider Mass Effect and The Witcher to be action RPGs, more similar to games like Ys and Diablo than games like Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy. The focus of those games are less on your character development (stats and whatnot) and more on the action, but the character development does matter quite a bit.
However, in RDR, your character development really doesn’t matter at all, at least in the first, and I’m guessing the second as well.
There’s more in 2 than 1 had. Most of it isn’t magic, like The Witcher or Mass Effect (though Dead Eye I’d say is magic), but there are a bunch of skills to learn, as well as weapons to purchase that give essentially Stat upgrades and unlocks to find. They’re more diegetic in RDR2 than the other games listed, but I’d say that’s better for an RPG, not worse.
They are not ARPGs though. That’s Diablo type games. They’re Action Adventure games, with RPG elements. I don’t think they should be classified with the RPGs because they have very different goals, even though they use similar mechanics.
You don’t need magic or even combat to be an RPG, you need the systems in the games to be dependent on stats/dice rolls. Disco Elysium, for example, is absolutely an RPG, and there’s no magic or combat in that game. One of the big giveaways that a game is an RPG is if there’s something you cannot do because your character’s abilities aren’t high enough. And not a combat move or something, but actual progression in some sense (dialog options, areas you can’t enter, bosses you can’t defeat, etc).
What makes Diablo an ARPG is that it’s an even mix of action and RPG. It’s unfair to call it an RPG because so much of the gameplay depends on player maneuvering, but it’s unfair to call it an action game because there’s so much depth to the skill tree. Other examples of ARPG are:
Ys - basically, Zelda with JRPG-style stats
Dark Souls - they have their own genre now, but I still think ARPG fits to a T
Hogwarts Legacy - lots of RPG elements, but gameplay is action first
I think Diablomight be different enough from core ARPGs to define its own subgenre: loot-based, ARPG dungeon crawler. ARPG is perhaps my favorite genre, but I honestly don’t like Diablo that much. My favorite game series is Ys, which I think strikes a perfect balance between JRPG elements and action; I find myself taking the “if I can’t beat the boss, I need to grind a bit” approach, but I can also just “git gud” if I really don’t want to grind out a couple levels (might double the length of the boss battle though). In a game like FF, you just can’t make up for being under-leveled after a certain point, whereas with action/action-adventure games, levels either don’t exist or don’t really impact progression (they may add cool abilities though).
So that’s why I think RDR isn’t an RPG. Even if it has abilities, they’re really not central to the game in the same way they are with other RPGs. You’re not going to lose a boss battle because you’re low on some stat, nor will you be barred from some content, you’ll just have to do more minigames to increase it. So it’s more of an immersive action-adventure, where you need to interact with the games systems to continue the adventure (eat, wear the right clothes, etc), and if you get it wrong, just sleep and continue. It’s similar to Zelda: Breath of the Wild, which is absolutely an action-adventure game, and it borrows some elements from the survival genre.
I know you don’t need magic to be an RPG. I was pointing out that the thing that makes the other two different from RDR is that they have magic, and not much else, so RDR is an RPG if they are. You will absolutely lose a boss fight if your stats are too low (and you aren’t skillful enough). Those stats are largely gun/equipment related though, not just stats on a stat block. The stats are largely diegetic, but they still exist.
Every modern game has stats though. They’re in everything, even things like Doom. I’m pretty sure no one is going to argue Doom is an RPG despite this though, so obviously stats are not the thing that makes something and RPG. They’re a key mechanic all RPGs must have, but they are not the factor that makes something and RPG. I would argue being able to define your character is the thing that makes an RPG, but I think the conversation is lost. I don’t think there can be a “proper” definition anymore with how it’s been applied to so many things.
Defining your character also isn’t core, since most JRPGs have a fixed character you play as.
But yeah, it’s a matter of “which genre is this closest to.” RDR is closest to an action-adventure game, because the core gameplay loop is on a mix of action (skill-based gunfights) and adventure (interaction with set pieces). RPGs tend to have a core gameplay loop based on character progression (leveling up, ability unlocks, etc) and interaction is generally with character abilities.
RDR’s abilities generally fall under the survival/management end of things, they’re interesting from an immersion aspect, but you’re not actively looking to level up some ability to solve some problem or unlock some content. In BotW, you also have “levels” (hearts and stamina containers), but increasing those aren’t really necessary to do anything, they just make the game a bit easier. Likewise with equipment, you don’t need the master sword, but it makes things a bit easier if you have it. The OG Zelda was a bit closer to an ARPG with equipment acting as “levels” (blue and later red rings to reduce damage, white and magical sword to increase attack, etc, each of which marks a stage of progression in the game), but it’s still an action-adventure because the game doesn’t revolve around that character progression.
So I’d call RDR2 an action-adventure with survival/RPG mechanics, because the core loop is around action and adventure.
The entire genre of RPGs exists because of geek-ass weirdos on American mainframes in the late 1970s. I got nerd-sniped wondering what could’ve come out on Channel F, and every trope was established and waiting before literally the first proper games console.
Of course, it makes perfect sense to describe Canadian products as North American, but OP asks about “American” RPGs. It would be strange to call Canadian Bacon “American food”.
The publisher is but the studio that makes GTA games is in Scotland. Not sure about Red Dead. Probably a collaborative effort between their studios, most of which are in the UK.
Rockstar is a US company, but the developers of GTA are Rockstar North in the UK. They used to be their own company developing GTA, when they were bought by Rockstar.
I have not played Red Dead but GTA is definitely not an RPG. It's an action adventure and at least from what I've seen from the former I'd expect it to be the same.
Generally, RPGs involve character progression through stats, and RDR really doesn’t have that. It’s an action adventure game with an emphasis on storytelling.
For an Action RPG, decision making, conversation options, and of course a skill trees are necessary. Basically you need to be able to shape your character to “play a role”.
Our accepted definition of what a continent is sucks. Why is Europe considered a continent but India is not? Every argument for Europe being a separate continent applies even better to India.
Europe just wanted to be special and controlled science at the time, change my mind.
If we’re going based on landmass, shouldn’t Russia be its own continent? Russia is almost twice as big as Europe, and it’s culturally unique compared to its neighbors.
Yup, but which two depends on how you define “continent.” It either spans Europe and Asia if you go by common definitions of continents, or it spans Eurasia and North America if you look at tectonic continental plates.
In contrast, the present eastern boundary of Europe partially adheres to the Ural and Caucasus Mountains, which is somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent compared to any clear-cut definition of the term “continent”.
The current division of Eurasia into two continents now reflects East-West cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences which vary on a spectrum rather than with a sharp dividing line.
There’s really no physical reasoning for it. You can read on in that article for the historical basis if you want (basically, Homer and other Greeks coined it, and it just kind of stuck), but it’s really quite arbitrary where they actually draw the line.
My bad, should clarify I was referring to this specifically:
In geology, a continent is defined as “one of Earth’s major landmasses, including both dry land and continental shelves”. The geological continents correspond to seven large areas of continental crust that are found on the tectonic plates, but exclude small continental fragments such as Madagascar that are generally referred to as microcontinents. Continental crust is only known to exist on Earth.
Honestly, that would be a much more satisfactory definition than the current one, which seems to be “large landmass bigger than Greenland with logical separations when they’re too big.” What I really don’t understand is when people say Europe and Asia are separate, but N. America and S. America are combined, that’s logically inconsistent.
India is part of the Indian subcontinent which is part of the Eurasian continent. This is the official goelogical definition. Don’t listen to uneducated children on the internet.
Fallout, Wasteland, The Elder Scrolls.
Also smaller games come to my mind, like Child of Light or South Park: The Stick Of Truth which are made by Ubisoft Montreal.
Well, it would be a bit unfair to talk about “European” games and “Asian” games, and on the other side “USA-made” games.
There are three countries in North America, we should at least include the two others.
Would be nice to include S. America as well, since at least some areas consider that part of the same continent as N. America (not sure why though, esp. when those same people claim Europe is separate from Asia…).
North America*. Besides that, people often group Canadians and Americans together quite often. The two countries are very similar culturally. I have seen it become more and more common to say North Americans when talking about things culturally. When it comes to politics or the specific country itself, of course it makes sense to separate them.
and you can get all those skills and will before you even finish the game there’s no choices in the story or even how the character fights really everyone playing hzd gets the same experience those are rpg elements but rpg elements doesn’t make a game an rpg it’s just triple a game design needing to have everything from every game ever
I’d say it’s just barely an Action RPG. But there’s no real decision making in the story, or even an attempt at it like Mass Effect, The Witcher, Cyberpunk.
What the fuck does this mean? I mean that no studio in America did anything good in decades. Baldur’s gate 2 was 2003. What good rpg was there? Mass effect was good. 2 and 3 didn’t deliver to legendary grade. Bioware is dead. Blizzard is dead. Bethesda did nothing since skyrim.
4 is not even remotely great it is genuinely awful 3 is fine I won’t insult 3 I enjoyed it not as much as nv I loved nv but I enjoyed it it was good even but 4 is an insult
wow really cause i played 4 and it was a great time because the game was great. you must have a very high standard. never played a single game under 90 score on metacritic (but that would mean new vegas is worse than 4)
As a big fan of fallout, imo, 4 is the weakest of series. Engine was outdated, repeated time wasting quests, boring world building, the base building was their new exciting feature but it fell kinda flat. Now with 1k+ mods game can actually be a lot fun though. Also 74 didn’t exist.
yep i read that. its why i brought up those games. they are good rpgs. did you read the meme? they are not talking about the game with the most rpg elements
Last mainline TES game is a decade old and Fallout 4 is also nearing that decade. Meanwhile almost all games in OPs list have released in the last decade.
There’s Obsidian but besides them I really can’t come up with another good RPG studio from the US that has released a game in the last decade.
GTA and RDR have zero decision making or conversation options or skill trees. They are open world action games that took some design notes from open world RPGs. But Rockstar is a British studio anyway.