Insensitive context - what is an RPG?

[Iblis]

Sit down with old Iblis a second. He promises to be gentle.

While tending the fires, his attention was caught by a lead article some days ago by a young lady by the name of Susan Arendt (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/op-ed/5242-Context-Sensitive-The-Long-and-Short-of-RPGs). With a little astonishment he noticed that while professing a love of RPGs, she only managed to reference several of the more popular within that niche market known as Japanese RPGs (JRPGs for ease of reference).

Her argument was that there must be a case for making RPGs shorter due to her obsessive Pokemon tendencies to collect everything. That the games did not hold her attention span and could do with pruning.

Old Iblis here can certainly see her point within that small niche market of console JRPGs which rely on set formulae to appease their loyal fanbase and to keep the fanbase with them from Cut-scene Adventures in Fairyland I through to Cut-scene Adventures in Fairyland XC.

But are these games truly representative of RPGs as a whole? Or is it that perhaps games which bear as much relation to a role-playing game as I do to cousin Gabriel, are getting labelled wrongly?

Consider for a second the very term 'role-playing'. It implies an empathy with your on screen avatar. Does one get this with the Final Fantasy series? At a basic level of course, after all did we all not shed a tear when the cute but homely magic-using female died at some point during a cut-scene? But did you feel true empathy? Were you that character, was that character your link between mind and imagined universe? Did you suspend belief?

Most of us will answer 'no'. And that is understandable. In JRPGs, one is herded towards set destinations, set points;in fact, though one does invariably beat the evil corporation, one has no choice but to beat the evil corporation. And this is where JRPGs fail one of the most fundamental rules of RPGs - that choices have consequences. If your avatar's actions are so rigidly pre-ordained, then one is merely moving from one cut-scene to the next, collecting meaningless potions in order to defeat the next biggest monster you will face.

Stop for a second and compare that with a game like Fallout. One creates an avatar which represents how you wish to be in the game world. This avatar can then pursue a myriad of different alternatives - in fact, one can actually decide not to fulfill the very starting mission which your avatar is given. One can choose not to collect a single item, and still complete the 'quest'. One can carry as much as one is able and still find that one is missing the correct item.

Old Iblis would hope such nuances within genres, especially when so obviously referencing the niche JRPG games, would perhaps be picked up, discussed. Sadly, it would seem not.

If one has a limited attention span, ADHD or any of the various other ailments which restrict one's capability to suspend belief (and old Iblis has more than his fair share of those), then that is understandable. If, however, one does not and still finds that JRPGs are tedious after the first few hours, then perhaps it would be an idea either not to play them or to seek out other alternatives? Personally, I would recommend games by companies such as Troika (RIP) or perhaps even revisit some old classics from the dim and distant past such as Betrayal at Krondor.

Perhaps the issue is not so much the genre of RPG itself, but what is currently being sold as belonging within that genre? Unless one can suspend disbelief and avoid the whole 'grinding out a level' aspect, then an RPG is not functioning properly and is, in fact, a poor representative for a genre which has formerly prided itself on its ability to offer meaningful choices with meaningful consequences for the gamer who is willing to invest the time.

Iblis must return to stoke Hades now. You see, that wasn't so rough after all, was it?

 

[Maet]

Overlooking the fact that you probably registered just so you could post this in what I'm fairly certain is the wrong forum, it's a pretty decent rant exploring a topic that I've come across far too often in this forum without going out of my way to look for it (Decoy Doctorpus did a much better job).

However I will say that I think you would do well to avoid the third person and somewhat pretentious tone.

 

[Iblis]

Old Iblis is somewhat amused by the use of the phrase 'somewhat pretentious tone'. Perhaps his style was chosen to match the forum? But as you obviously know his mind better than he does, then you can answer that question for yourself and have a fair chance of getting it wrong.

 

[N-Sef]

You present an interesting argument, but I'd suggest losing the third person narrative.

Anyway to my knowledge Role Playing video games are based off of Tabletop pen and paper Role Playing games like Dungeons and Dragons. These RPGs are run by a guy/chick named the Dungeon Master, a person who rules over the precedings and walks you through an adventure with other players. They tell you what you see and what you are looking for, and what to kill. More importantly this style of playing was about building a character through a series of stats that 'levelled' your character through fighting battles, solving problems and completing quests. A set plot, and stat building. That is what an RPG is, and not much has changed in the days that the pen and paper games were created, now we just run these things on our computers and video game consoles.

Now Enix brought out a little game on the Famicom named Dragon Quest that mimiced this style of play, only the developer themselves were the dungeon master. But the game remained true to the roots of the original games, only replacing dice and paper with a gamepad and your imagination with sprites on a television. Fast forward a few years and the Japanese developers started replacing game Avatars with actual characters with storylines like in Final Fantasy II. This did nothing to offset the fact that the game remained an RPG, you still levelled up fighting monsters and you still solved quests based upon what the storyline is telling you. This hasn't changed to this day, with the Japanese dev teams.

Western devs decided to go with a different route, but they still remained within the tone set by the pen and paper games. The Ultima games, for example, allowed you a myriad of options of outfitting your characters but you still had to complete the main quest which Lord British designed. You bring up Fallout, an excellent RPG and a case for the change in the Wests perception of RPGs. Fallout basically gave us a brief plot and told us we are our own Dungeon Masters, here are the keys to the SPECIAL system and have fun. Western RPGs decided to follow the adventures of the self made hero by giving you a lot more options than their Japanese counterparts. But they still remained true to what the genre was all about, levelling up by killing things and beating quests.

Recently the two cultures have started to converge, like Shin Megami Tensei: Lucifer's Call/Nocturne plays basically like a western RPG (yes I realize the Megami Tensei franchise first appeared in 1987 on the original Famicom, but I'm just giving an example here) and Bioware's own Knights of the Old Republic played in a linear fashion but still retained the avatar and moral choice systems that the Western market was used to. Even with all these changes in the two markets, the games at their core were the same.

Understand that JRPGs come from a different culture where people like playing Visual Novel style games as opposed to First Person Shooters. Even with the cultural changes the two seperate RPG genres have taken, they remain the same at their core. You are tasked to kill bad guys to level up and up your stats enough to beat a big bad and complete some quest. The presentation of the two is different, but they still remain RPGs.

 

[Iblis]

I'd suggest losing the third person narrative.

Old Iblis refuses to lose anything in this forum. Too many parameters and somewhats round here for that.

[snip]You are tasked to kill bad guys to level up and up your stats enough to beat a big bad and complete some quest. The presentation of the two is different, but they still remain RPGs.

Iblis notes that you understand how the interaction between avatar/character and world is controlled. ie the mechanic. Where does roleplay become involved?

 

[Maet]

Great. A semantics argument. You might as well complain that an RTS game where you can win by the same never fail guerrilla tactic shouldn't be called an RTS because there's no strategy involved.

I stayed up quite a bit hoping this discussion would go somewhere too. Have fun, kids.

 

[Iblis]

Great. A semantics argument. You might as well complain that an RTS game where you can win by the same never fail guerrilla tactic shouldn't be called an RTS because there's no strategy involved.

Iblis is somewhat confused as you proclaimed earlier that this discussion had been had so many times before. Surely one must identify what is the core identity of the gaming genre before one can cast aspersions such as Ms Arendt has done? Semantics is best left to structuralism lessons young chicken.

I stayed up quite a bit hoping this discussion would go somewhere too. Have fun, kids.

Old Iblis is happy to be called young again and bids you happy cookies and milk for school tomorrow.

 

[Maet]

Iblis is somewhat confused as you proclaimed earlier that this discussion had been had so many times before.

The topic of philosophy behind choice and consequence in games, yes. Not petty nomenclature and semantics.

What is an RPG? A name for a genre that's a hell of a lot cooler and more marketable than "occasionally interactive novel". Mystery solved. Acronyms sell, that's all there is to it.

Surely one must identify what is the core identity of the gaming genre before one can cast aspersions such as Ms Arendt has done? Semantics is best left to structuralism lessons young chicken.

And no, that's superfluous.

 

[Iblis]

The topic of philosophy behind choice and consequence in games, yes. Not petty nomenclature and semantics.

To reach there, we must surely first establish whether or not what defines an RPG is a mechanic (eg stats etc) or a philosophy (eg choice and consequence, suspension of disbelief etc)? It would seem that you and Iblis are in rough agreement over the latter, while Iblis is more tolerant towards the former viewpoint and wishes to guide the discussion to the philosophy.

What is an RPG? A name for a genre that's a hell of a lot cooler and more marketable than "occasionally interactive novel". Mystery solved. Acronyms sell, that's all there is to it.

Vague acronyms certainly do sell. If one can place one's own meaning.. ah, semantics. Forgive Old Iblis. His mind wanders.

And no, that's superfluous.

Perhaps. But evidently not if you have stayed awake to have this discussion in the far off reaches of Canuckdom. To build an argument, one must ensure that one's terms of reference are the same. Otherwise Iblis will eventually become tired of explaining why JRPGs are truly different on many levels from even the initial tabletop RPGs of the 1970s which Old Iblis can just about remember in first edition. For you it may well be though, so perhaps now would be the time to bow out with good grace if you are already reading from the hymnbook of the damned and rejoin if/when the discussion moves into areas which are more fertile territory for you?

 

[r3dknight]

I kinda see his point in identifying Japanese RPG as too rail-roaded and has very little decisions. But recent JRPGs do give you choices that lead to variety of endings and side contents that you may otherwise never see. It's a step in the right direction but honestly, expecting a total change from an already established genre (J-RPG) and well-liked rigid structure (Big bad battle, macho/beautiful male, cute girls and long cut scenes for story telling)is asking too much. I dream one day perhaps of Arcanum done in anime style, it can be done but honestly which Japanese developers would think of going that route if their domestic market does not demand it? They hardly developed any RPGs for PC anyway.

Perhaps it's best that way so people who prefer certain flavors to stick to their own restaurants instead of demanding others to follow his/her own tastes.

 

[Maet]

It would seem that you and Iblis are in rough agreement over the latter, while Iblis is more tolerant towards the former viewpoint and wishes to guide the discussion to the philosophy.

I find it hard to believe that you have any interest in pursuing any discussion, game related or otherwise, when you hide behind your posts in the third person that drip with smugness and cheap insults. Do you really expect any two people to have a discussion when one party sits atop a mountain of pretentiousness as they speak condescendingly to everyone in the valleys below?

You're the antithesis of tolerance. There is no discussion here, and there never was (I don't know why I even tried looking). You're right though. I should have bowed out after my first post. It was foolish of me to believe that anyone as self obsessed as "old Iblis" is capable of partaking in a civil and intelligent discussion.

I cede. You win this argument, due to your mastery of shameless and shifty debate tactics. I hope this surrender assuages at least a few of your innumerable insecurities.

 

[r3dknight]

Uh, he's just trying to role-play. I don't think there's an issue. I mean, yes it could be quite annoying to those who are not used to it, but honestly just take it like an adult. It's the 'Escapist' for goodness sake. I doubt he's Iblis in real life. Ha ha. Chill out.

 

[milskidasith]

By your definition, no video games are true RPGs. Even western RPGs that have choices in them boil down to being an RPG for all of two seconds when you choose to get the good or the bad ending. The rest of it's basically just like choosing one of two treasure chests in a JRPG: You get different rewards but in the end it really doesn't matter.

Anyway, I'm fairly certain there is a difference between tabletop RPG's and video game RPG's. Video game RPG's involve controlling the character or the character's party, stats, equipment, etc. Basically the "role playing" aspect of it is simply that you get to, to some degree, customize your characters skills and equipment. Tabletop RPG's are when your roleplaying actually starts to have real "consequences." The two are not the same thing.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Hrrm.

An RPG is a role playing game, thus any game where you play a role, including Halo and Half-life, is a RPG by basics.

That's why they were defined into LRP, LARP, TT, MMORPG, CYOA, CCG etc.

If we're looking at Western/JRPG's, they both share definable characters, experience gaining, first person viewpoint etc. but unlike all other RPG's, there is no freedom to do anything that is not covered in the rules of combat; which is where the orignal D&D had problems.

So, computer RPG's are basically Wargames; which is where Chainmail, the originator of D&D (and thus RPG's in general) all came from.

Cousins, if you will.

So sports games are also Computer RPGS.

 

[Iblis]

wrote about how he felt inferior and didn't want to play

Farewell sweet Maet.

-------

Old Iblis sees again some posts which refer to mechanics. Of course many/most rpgs have combat. But does this necessarily define the genre? Chainmail were wargame rules, so why were they not sufficient for Dungeons and Dragons?

Is combat the raison d'etre for RPGs? Or is that just on aspect of how the player/avatar/group can impact upon the game world?

The Root of all Evil's post and point is well made. If one takes a very broad definition of role-playing then one 'plays the role' of Mario. Yet the leap from combat simulation to role-playing is one Iblis cannot make. Isn't combat just an element of the game, or should it not be just an element?

 

[The Wooster]

First off, calling the forum pretentious, particuarly when you've been a member for less than a day, is bang out of order old chum.

Secondly, I did the whole 3rd person thing back in the day too, I call it my 80's period. It's the internet equivilent of a ACDC hoodie.

The piece itself was well written, profesionally paced and the 'old man' schtick was interesting (reliance on 3rd person, not so much) and although I completely disagree with you [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.71490?page=1] your points were valid.

The only fly in the ointment is your limited scope. JRPG's are but one of a myriad of sub genres. When you stated (in the title) that you could define what an RPG was, I was expecting a huge scope. Long scrolling mountain vistas of awesome. Instead you just looked under one particularly uninteresting rock. A shame.

 

[Iblis]

Ah Herr Doktor, how pleasing it is to an old man to see you.

And as Iblis guessed, you took the point. Haircut 100 was so Iblis' era.

If limited in scope, Old Iblis refers you to the posts thus far made and asks whether or not it is wise to begin building castles when the foundations are made of soggy sand? In fact, when Ms Arendt references solely JRPGs surely that is an issue to take up with her original 'news' item?

 

[The Wooster]

Ah Herr Doktor, how pleasing it is to an old man to see you.

And as Iblis guessed, you took the point. Haircut 100 was so Iblis' era.

If limited in scope, Old Iblis refers you to the posts thus far made and asks whether or not it is wise to begin building castles when the foundations are made of soggy sand? In fact, when Ms Arendt references solely JRPGs surely that is an issue to take up with her original 'news' item?

I never said Susan's piece was perfect but remember that she does have to work within certain limitations. A strict word limit being the most obvious. If you plan to continue this line of thought in other articles that's great but I for one think one solid piece makes for a far more cohesive and effective read.

I think you limited yourself here by making your piece a direct response to Susan's article but it's fine work regardless.

 

[Iblis]

Old Iblis would like to mutually fellate Herr Doktor, as Iblis notes Herr Doktor's posts are both relevant and concise.

Yet, Iblis is concerned that 'limitations' are becoming short-hand for shoddy finking. As a games journalist, surely Ms Arendt has a responsibilty to ensure that Final Fantasy VII is not portrayed as the epitomy of RPGs? Else old Iblis must surely conclude that either she or her readers are either console-dependent or 'special'?

Old Iblis will continue to ponder the issue, but the reaction so far has been very discouraging. To talk of mechanics when the concept is of philosophy in design is so banal, that Iblis has little option but to point a finger to a deeper discussion of mechanics and perhaps deeper distinguishing features between genres.

Old Iblis will consider writing something yet more tangible and perhaps less ACDC. Yet the forum and style of journalism lends itself less to third person, and more to first person 'I was a level 65 inky cleric for 3 years but did you hear me complain every time I rezzed a guild raid which went wrong'?

 

[wolfwood_is_here]

As was mentioned earlier, most "Final Fantasy" games are merely a means of telling an interactive story. Which is why most Final Fantasies are really the same iteration over and over, at least Final Fantasy Tactics (my personal favorite of the series) had more significant depth than just "angsty teenager with improbable hair saves world from evil."

I mean, there still was an evil organization, but you don't figure out who they are and what role they have played until well into the game. But pretty much all the characters have realistic hairdos and believable backgrounds. The main character was an idealist who wanted to do the right thing, even if it would cost his own safety or cause him to betray old friends and family. So I would say that I felt a connection because the character was believable and his actions were reasonable. But, that game still placed heavy focus on combat.

I believe that a game like The Elder Scrolls, Oblivion being the most recent installment, is a better facsimile of what a fantasy RPG videogame should be. You are free to avoid combat entirely and instead just work on being rich, or being a thief, or whatever you want. You have a lot of choices as to what you want to do in the world and you are free to grow your character and completely ignore the main "storyline quest".

Another example would be the "Space Rangers" series. I find them a good sci-fi RPG because you are, again, free to choose how you play, who you align with, whether to be a merchant or warrior, etc. What, where, and how you do things is left up to you, and you can completely ignore any storyline elements if you choose.

Though I find that while RPG's can involve those elements in the general definition, I play games to get a taste of something I know I couldn't do in real life. In real life I can be a businessman, but I can't go fight mythical beings or aliens or whatever.