(No, the search field wasn't used to see if this has been discussed. If it has, it's not in the first ten pages of topics. That said, let's hash it up some.)
So, people are mad that Skyrim isn't an RPG. People are upset that it's 'just a rehash' (What you say?), or that it was an action game with RPG elements. The last statement's probably the only grain of truth in that, but doesn't that kind of make Morrowind and Oblivion of the same vein? I digress though - that's only really a lead-in to the rest of this notion:
What the HELL is an RPG, really?
(I guess you can tell what game I've got about 80 hours into so far, hence it's mention.)
I look back, as those with fond, fuzzy memories of that safe and happy time, when the only roleplaying game -was- a a First-Person Dungeon Crawl. Your options were the first handful of Elder Scrolls, Bards Tale, and DnD games. The first RPG that I actually played, I didn't really consider an RPG at all. It was based off of Dragonlance, and had you assume the roles of the Companions. (No, not werewolves. Caramon, Raistlin, Tasslehoff, Tanis Half-Elven, Lauriana, Sturm.)
At the time? That game was awesome, because it implemented turn by turn action and strategy, ALONG with placement, movement, terrain. It was essentially a step above not being able to see your character, even if it was horrifingly 8 bit (by today's standards.)
But goddammit? It told a story, and if you were a fan, there were hrrible moments, where nothing you could do would change the outcome of the Weis and Hickman series (the parts you wanted to change, like Sturm not dying, though I dislike Paladins or snooty Knights and digress again), but in the long run, I felt a satisfying experience (at the time) for being included as a part of a book series I thoroughly enjoyed.
But back then, an 'RPG' was easily defined:
You had Hitpoints and Magic Points.
You had levels gained through experience points, could equip stuff, and cast spells.
You assumed the identity of someone, and this, back in the 80s, was never a very clearly defined person, save on the part of the user. If you wanted your Dragon Warrior to have a personality, you made it up.
The only impact you ever had was saving the world. There were no plot twists and political factions, no world-changing choices. Console gaming definitely upped things a notch in that factor, but not for several years. The idea of a player's role making decisions other than 'save deh princess and hit lvl 99' just didn't carry the impact and morality of a tabletop game.
I'm not sure at what point things changed, but somewhere along the line, choices started to matter. Whether it was as simple as letting Frog have the killing stroke on Magus in Chrono Trigger, or choosing to align with darker forces (admittedly, for better items) to alter the outcome of the ending of Ogre Battle, or hell, choosing your alignment and the world being changed in Baldurs' Gate simply because it -did- reflect your choices, I was suddenly caught off guard.
Now I had options. Now, what I did in the game had weight, it had leverage. It had consequence. I was moderately thrilled that the videogame industry was going to keep attempting to emulate a tabletop roleplaying game by trying to include every aspect, except for the social one you could have with your friends. Wait, what's that, Baldurs Gate also had MULTIPLAYER? Sure, there were a few games that already incorporated this, but now there were two, or three, or more of us who could act in this lush 2 1/2 dimensional environment and make changes and choices.
I couldn't do everything. But then again, I didn't want to. It captured the parts of an adventure in DnD that every single player loves - questing. But because it had chat and function, you could, to whatever degree you desired, roleplay.
Later, I saw what I feel was a great divide in the definitition of what it is to Role Play on a console or PC, though. Tabletop, it seems, will always be the truest way to roleplay. And if you feel it's too action with RPG elements, or 'too linear' or 'not immersive enough', you could convey this to your DM. But yeah - the MMO essentially was born, spawned from the crotch of some festering jerkbeast.
People defined these games (Everquest) as an MMORPG. WHy? It was massively multiplayer, and you had quests, xp, hp, mp, spells, summons, classes. You built your faceless mook from the ground up, but in the end, it was still up to the player to draw out nuances and details. So to that end, it was an RPG, because that's almost assuredly what was defined to use it. But there was no moral outlook. There was no dire consequence or world-changing actions you could take that would alter the course of the game that made you want to go back and try anew, but on a different path.
And on the other side of the chasm, Neverwinter Nights. I can't, I just can't call it an MMO, though it was a very, very sexy standalone game and most of the online servers were used for pixellated humpering about unless you had a good group of people. I can't by rights call NWN an MMORPG, however, because it actually does plant you in a faceless role. In a rather large, entertaining world. Not only is there character advancement, development, romance elements, morality choice and consequence, but you could party up with your friends, and best of all? Design whole new worlds. And if you happened to have a good scripter or two as pals, you could truly create a whole, full, physical WORLD. Populate it. Add quests. Traps. New spells. All of it was changeable over time and not terribly complex for even the most basic quests.
To me, NWN was probably the first, best, more impressive gaming experience in an RPG that I've ever had, and you didn't need the toolset to do it, but holy hell - the Aurora toolset exploded the potential. And gave it immense replay value beyond the scope of most console games.
But outside of this little relic of a game, the idea of an RPG I felt, either got lost in the woods, or just transmutated into something more, while still retaining the classic bits of an RPG (Stats, Gear, XP, Spells and Summons), only now it was much flashier.
Enter the sandbox and the mainstreaming trend of action-rpg.
Fable probably wasn't the first Sandbox that crawled into my Xbox and confused the hell out of me. You could do so much, but yet, it lacked this feel, because your character NEVER SAID A THING. You made grunts and gestures and danced about, and that was how you interacted with everyone. Maybe your character was mute and proficient in sign language, and the people just humored him because he was capable of deadly things. But hell, you could change the world, the graphics were alright, and the action was tight (even if difficulty was lacking). It made the RPG element of the game more streamlined for combat's sake. The moral choices you made affected how people reacted to you.
But in the last several years, there's been that disturbing trend. Change, and the world changes nothing. Be evil, and you're simply sent to an area full of evil NPCs that give you quests to kill good guy NPCs. Everything you did, whether it was for action-rpg advancement, or mmo-rpg advancement, implemented the goddamn GRIND. Grind was optional before. You didn't need to grind in these older games, unless you wanted that really sweet piece of gear, but the game wasn't made or broken by popcorn fetch-quests.
Even single player RPGs (or limited-player multiplayer) wanted you to grind. And they no longer touted themselves as the strictly sword-weilding and spell slinging type, now we have sci-fi space operas of multiple kinds just as populated as fantasy themed ones.
Some offered actual incentive that left a player feeling rewarded in some fashion, but really, my Even Better Sword of Better Stuff Than The Last One didn't really help me feel like I'd done something worthwhile to affect the gaming world. So I acquired a sword of power. Where are the minions of my archnemeses, to try and foil my recovery, or even ambush me before the sword comes to full power? Where are the other groups and factions that could use this weapon, to strip it from me? The story had died out, so I turned back to PC rpgs, hoping for some solace.
I didn't find much, and in the last few years, I still haven't sought out the source of that je ne sais quois about an RPG that truly defines it as one. Elder Scrolls series offered choice, but little worthwhile moral impact. Dragon Age lent an air of responsibility to your actions, but the game fell short as a whole because you were hammered into about prophecy the whole way. Every action game in the market had you grinding out XP or *insert resource name here* to buy new powers and advancements.
Fallout 3 happened, but even then, the moral decisions were limited - either you saved the baby or ate it, there were no satisfying morally gray things to deal with except for the Pitt, neither side in that was much more than scum. The moral impacts never really fleshed out, the replay value for a different ending was merely a reloaded quicksave away. Once again, you saved the world/region/province, but... eh? (This doesn't give the game justice, I played the HELL out of it, so much so that when New Vegas came along, I was still wasteland-overwhelmed.)
Now, today's better games with RPG elements are bitterly argued about, whether one is too linear (as most novels -tend- to be, just saying, this isn't a bad thing at all), one lacks a sense of changing the world and has no real moral implications (aside from a bounty), or maybe it had some of all of the right elements, but just not enough.
Or, at least I thought that, and then wondered: Crap, am I getting old? A curmudgeon? An unsatisfiable and contempt filled gamer demanding the industry bow to my every whim? Old, yes. And getting old means clinging to what you know as a basis for what you don't know. Curmudgeon, no, I still find joy in this evolution of what an RPG is, though rather than getting what I want in ONE game, I have several to help flesh that out.
If I crave signifigance and consequence for my actions (as not having any removes the element of risk in any action you take. Then again, so does Quicksaving.), I play one game. If I want something more old-feely (classic dungeon crawlin), I have my older consoles and discs waiting to be dusted off. If I just wanna amass a huge whopping load of sexy gear to further my buttkicking capabilities and I don't feel wary about grinding out time for stuff, there's other games.
Some 'RPG' games are trying to give too much choice, or simply not enough. Some put you in a fixed role, some leave it a blank slate for you to fill in, but then consequently, all that happens is 'you're a dude, a different looking dude, but all this stuff your gonna do is the same, really'.
So then today, I asked myself - what the hell is an RPG, really?
I had no friggin concrete answer and it annoyed me.
Truth is, I think what makes an RPG truly an RPG is dependent on the player.
(Well, that, and pens, paper, dice and books. To me, that will always be the penultimate definition, because quite literally, everything that is RPG can be done in a conference with your friends at the table, the NPCs are almost always more memorable, and the DM is more than happy to apply consequence and weight to your actions. The graphics may not appeal to you as much, depending on the scale of unattractive your friends are.)
Your eyes might hurt right about now. Sorry. Time to rest mine, too. I wanna know what you guys think. Weigh in:
What, to you, sums up an RPG. What is an RPG to you? Explore your thoughts, expand on them.
And for frigs sakes, stick to the topic, do a better job than me, I was all over the place up in here. Truly, I really want to know what others think matter in their Role Playing Game experience, or what they feel are the defining qualities of a role playing game.
Thanks, Escapists, and keep the Nice Gloves on.
So, people are mad that Skyrim isn't an RPG. People are upset that it's 'just a rehash' (What you say?), or that it was an action game with RPG elements. The last statement's probably the only grain of truth in that, but doesn't that kind of make Morrowind and Oblivion of the same vein? I digress though - that's only really a lead-in to the rest of this notion:
What the HELL is an RPG, really?
(I guess you can tell what game I've got about 80 hours into so far, hence it's mention.)
I look back, as those with fond, fuzzy memories of that safe and happy time, when the only roleplaying game -was- a a First-Person Dungeon Crawl. Your options were the first handful of Elder Scrolls, Bards Tale, and DnD games. The first RPG that I actually played, I didn't really consider an RPG at all. It was based off of Dragonlance, and had you assume the roles of the Companions. (No, not werewolves. Caramon, Raistlin, Tasslehoff, Tanis Half-Elven, Lauriana, Sturm.)
At the time? That game was awesome, because it implemented turn by turn action and strategy, ALONG with placement, movement, terrain. It was essentially a step above not being able to see your character, even if it was horrifingly 8 bit (by today's standards.)
But goddammit? It told a story, and if you were a fan, there were hrrible moments, where nothing you could do would change the outcome of the Weis and Hickman series (the parts you wanted to change, like Sturm not dying, though I dislike Paladins or snooty Knights and digress again), but in the long run, I felt a satisfying experience (at the time) for being included as a part of a book series I thoroughly enjoyed.
But back then, an 'RPG' was easily defined:
You had Hitpoints and Magic Points.
You had levels gained through experience points, could equip stuff, and cast spells.
You assumed the identity of someone, and this, back in the 80s, was never a very clearly defined person, save on the part of the user. If you wanted your Dragon Warrior to have a personality, you made it up.
The only impact you ever had was saving the world. There were no plot twists and political factions, no world-changing choices. Console gaming definitely upped things a notch in that factor, but not for several years. The idea of a player's role making decisions other than 'save deh princess and hit lvl 99' just didn't carry the impact and morality of a tabletop game.
I'm not sure at what point things changed, but somewhere along the line, choices started to matter. Whether it was as simple as letting Frog have the killing stroke on Magus in Chrono Trigger, or choosing to align with darker forces (admittedly, for better items) to alter the outcome of the ending of Ogre Battle, or hell, choosing your alignment and the world being changed in Baldurs' Gate simply because it -did- reflect your choices, I was suddenly caught off guard.
Now I had options. Now, what I did in the game had weight, it had leverage. It had consequence. I was moderately thrilled that the videogame industry was going to keep attempting to emulate a tabletop roleplaying game by trying to include every aspect, except for the social one you could have with your friends. Wait, what's that, Baldurs Gate also had MULTIPLAYER? Sure, there were a few games that already incorporated this, but now there were two, or three, or more of us who could act in this lush 2 1/2 dimensional environment and make changes and choices.
I couldn't do everything. But then again, I didn't want to. It captured the parts of an adventure in DnD that every single player loves - questing. But because it had chat and function, you could, to whatever degree you desired, roleplay.
Later, I saw what I feel was a great divide in the definitition of what it is to Role Play on a console or PC, though. Tabletop, it seems, will always be the truest way to roleplay. And if you feel it's too action with RPG elements, or 'too linear' or 'not immersive enough', you could convey this to your DM. But yeah - the MMO essentially was born, spawned from the crotch of some festering jerkbeast.
People defined these games (Everquest) as an MMORPG. WHy? It was massively multiplayer, and you had quests, xp, hp, mp, spells, summons, classes. You built your faceless mook from the ground up, but in the end, it was still up to the player to draw out nuances and details. So to that end, it was an RPG, because that's almost assuredly what was defined to use it. But there was no moral outlook. There was no dire consequence or world-changing actions you could take that would alter the course of the game that made you want to go back and try anew, but on a different path.
And on the other side of the chasm, Neverwinter Nights. I can't, I just can't call it an MMO, though it was a very, very sexy standalone game and most of the online servers were used for pixellated humpering about unless you had a good group of people. I can't by rights call NWN an MMORPG, however, because it actually does plant you in a faceless role. In a rather large, entertaining world. Not only is there character advancement, development, romance elements, morality choice and consequence, but you could party up with your friends, and best of all? Design whole new worlds. And if you happened to have a good scripter or two as pals, you could truly create a whole, full, physical WORLD. Populate it. Add quests. Traps. New spells. All of it was changeable over time and not terribly complex for even the most basic quests.
To me, NWN was probably the first, best, more impressive gaming experience in an RPG that I've ever had, and you didn't need the toolset to do it, but holy hell - the Aurora toolset exploded the potential. And gave it immense replay value beyond the scope of most console games.
But outside of this little relic of a game, the idea of an RPG I felt, either got lost in the woods, or just transmutated into something more, while still retaining the classic bits of an RPG (Stats, Gear, XP, Spells and Summons), only now it was much flashier.
Enter the sandbox and the mainstreaming trend of action-rpg.
Fable probably wasn't the first Sandbox that crawled into my Xbox and confused the hell out of me. You could do so much, but yet, it lacked this feel, because your character NEVER SAID A THING. You made grunts and gestures and danced about, and that was how you interacted with everyone. Maybe your character was mute and proficient in sign language, and the people just humored him because he was capable of deadly things. But hell, you could change the world, the graphics were alright, and the action was tight (even if difficulty was lacking). It made the RPG element of the game more streamlined for combat's sake. The moral choices you made affected how people reacted to you.
But in the last several years, there's been that disturbing trend. Change, and the world changes nothing. Be evil, and you're simply sent to an area full of evil NPCs that give you quests to kill good guy NPCs. Everything you did, whether it was for action-rpg advancement, or mmo-rpg advancement, implemented the goddamn GRIND. Grind was optional before. You didn't need to grind in these older games, unless you wanted that really sweet piece of gear, but the game wasn't made or broken by popcorn fetch-quests.
Even single player RPGs (or limited-player multiplayer) wanted you to grind. And they no longer touted themselves as the strictly sword-weilding and spell slinging type, now we have sci-fi space operas of multiple kinds just as populated as fantasy themed ones.
Some offered actual incentive that left a player feeling rewarded in some fashion, but really, my Even Better Sword of Better Stuff Than The Last One didn't really help me feel like I'd done something worthwhile to affect the gaming world. So I acquired a sword of power. Where are the minions of my archnemeses, to try and foil my recovery, or even ambush me before the sword comes to full power? Where are the other groups and factions that could use this weapon, to strip it from me? The story had died out, so I turned back to PC rpgs, hoping for some solace.
I didn't find much, and in the last few years, I still haven't sought out the source of that je ne sais quois about an RPG that truly defines it as one. Elder Scrolls series offered choice, but little worthwhile moral impact. Dragon Age lent an air of responsibility to your actions, but the game fell short as a whole because you were hammered into about prophecy the whole way. Every action game in the market had you grinding out XP or *insert resource name here* to buy new powers and advancements.
Fallout 3 happened, but even then, the moral decisions were limited - either you saved the baby or ate it, there were no satisfying morally gray things to deal with except for the Pitt, neither side in that was much more than scum. The moral impacts never really fleshed out, the replay value for a different ending was merely a reloaded quicksave away. Once again, you saved the world/region/province, but... eh? (This doesn't give the game justice, I played the HELL out of it, so much so that when New Vegas came along, I was still wasteland-overwhelmed.)
Now, today's better games with RPG elements are bitterly argued about, whether one is too linear (as most novels -tend- to be, just saying, this isn't a bad thing at all), one lacks a sense of changing the world and has no real moral implications (aside from a bounty), or maybe it had some of all of the right elements, but just not enough.
Or, at least I thought that, and then wondered: Crap, am I getting old? A curmudgeon? An unsatisfiable and contempt filled gamer demanding the industry bow to my every whim? Old, yes. And getting old means clinging to what you know as a basis for what you don't know. Curmudgeon, no, I still find joy in this evolution of what an RPG is, though rather than getting what I want in ONE game, I have several to help flesh that out.
If I crave signifigance and consequence for my actions (as not having any removes the element of risk in any action you take. Then again, so does Quicksaving.), I play one game. If I want something more old-feely (classic dungeon crawlin), I have my older consoles and discs waiting to be dusted off. If I just wanna amass a huge whopping load of sexy gear to further my buttkicking capabilities and I don't feel wary about grinding out time for stuff, there's other games.
Some 'RPG' games are trying to give too much choice, or simply not enough. Some put you in a fixed role, some leave it a blank slate for you to fill in, but then consequently, all that happens is 'you're a dude, a different looking dude, but all this stuff your gonna do is the same, really'.
So then today, I asked myself - what the hell is an RPG, really?
I had no friggin concrete answer and it annoyed me.
Truth is, I think what makes an RPG truly an RPG is dependent on the player.
(Well, that, and pens, paper, dice and books. To me, that will always be the penultimate definition, because quite literally, everything that is RPG can be done in a conference with your friends at the table, the NPCs are almost always more memorable, and the DM is more than happy to apply consequence and weight to your actions. The graphics may not appeal to you as much, depending on the scale of unattractive your friends are.)
Your eyes might hurt right about now. Sorry. Time to rest mine, too. I wanna know what you guys think. Weigh in:
What, to you, sums up an RPG. What is an RPG to you? Explore your thoughts, expand on them.
And for frigs sakes, stick to the topic, do a better job than me, I was all over the place up in here. Truly, I really want to know what others think matter in their Role Playing Game experience, or what they feel are the defining qualities of a role playing game.
Thanks, Escapists, and keep the Nice Gloves on.
