RPGs defined

[Abedeus]

IMO how you differentiated NetHack and Mass Effect apart from eah other was by their gameplay, not the genre.

That's what defines a game genre. It's why shooters, platformers, and fighting games are considered different genres.

I thought it was because there are different points and reasons to play the game in every one of them...

Shooters - you go around shooting things, that's the most important thing.
Platformers - you go around, jump from platforms and defeat enemies, story is only a minor thing here.
RPGs - story and assuming the skin of another character is the most important.

"Points and reasons" shouts gameplay to me. Just because Prince of Persia and Super Mario Brothers have a decided gap in storytelling doesn't mean the latter is more of a platformer than the other. People not like me who totally ignore the lore in World of Warcraft doesn't make it any less of an RPG. I can race through levels really fast whether I'm playing Sonic the Hedgehog or Gran Turismo, but the former is a platformer and the latter is a racing game. I can fight enemies one-on-one in Devil May Cry or Tekken, but the former is a complicated mix of action, platforming, and puzzles, while the latter is a pure fighting game.

All depends on how it's set up to play.

Yes, and you can ignore enemies in Diablo and just kill the act bosses (or have someone do it for you), you can ignore Guild Wars' PvE mode and just kill people with friends or random jerks, you can ignore trying to get the best times in NFS...

The games were DESIGNED to be in a genre. If people designed a game to be a platformer, it doesn't matter what 3-5% of the playerbase does - the game was meant to be played as a platforming game.

 

[Neuromaster]

I think at a minimum, a RPG must allow you to control the progression of your character(s). That might mean stats such as focusing on stealth over magic, or melee over ranged combat. Personally, I have the additional requirement that the game allow me to control at least some of my character's "moral" decisions. That isn't a great word for it, but I want the option between talking my way past the guard and just cutting his head off. I'd like to be able to choose to be an asshole or an altruist.

Incidentally, by my own rules Mass Effect is much more of a RPG than pretty much any Final Fantasy (and I'm guessing most other JRPGs as well).

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

I'm pretty sure that today the 'official definition' of RPG is, "Game developed by BioWare, Bethesda, Obsidian, or Square Enix" [/sarcasm]

But seriously, I think a Role Playing Game is a Game where you Play a Role that you choose. Like Mass Effect, or Dragon Age, or Oblivion, or Fallout. Hell, even BioShock or Red Dead Redemption (If they made it make sense for you to be an outlaw). To me, Final Fantasy isn't an RPG because you have defined characters, defined actions, defined outcomes, and no real player input into what happens. You handle the combat, the writers handle the story. You're not playing a role.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

Snip

I'm well aware of the definition of role-play, thank you. It is nearly irrelevant to this discussion, as actual real world role-play has next to nothing to do with role playing games, which as far as I can tell arose when Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson decided to try tabletop wargaming on a small scale by adapting chainmail rules to suit combat between individuals, with players controlling those characters, rather than an army. thus everyone was "playing a role", rather than "role playing".

Unfortunately, the (terrible) name stuck, and now we have people making downright absurd statements about PRGs such as "they are games in which you play a role". So Halo, Super Mario Bros. and Hungry hungry hippos are all roleplaying games? Lolwut?

Sorry, but it does have to do, I can see your problem is with the name. I myseld as said before in other threads and even here that many RPGs are not RPGs at all. Or if they are, then yes, maybe Super Mario Bros and Hungry hippos could under such twisted definition be RPG's. Some people here already said that maybe and just maybe, we should talk then about role play VIDEO games

Just back to Super Mario if you read my last post its obvious why super mario cant be a role playing game, there is no choice, no impact im the story from your actions with the caracther. Opposed to a RPG PnP or LARP where you can make options, and in the last case be inventive. RP videogames have to do with all the others, but as many escapists said there is only so much programmers can do to allow you to choose (in lately they rather not give you much if any) and in the videogame version in fact everything tends to focus on the character construct, its stats and skill and talents (specialization) and little to nothing on a storyline/plot. BUt that's not because of not being related to, that's because of the limitation imposed by programming. Maybe when we invent real artificial intelligence that is able to create choices of its own, we can program video games where you can also take any choice you want and the program will improvise and create a new path that didn't exist previously.


Oh and I hope you really are paying attention to the rest of the posts.

 

[Korten12]

Demon's Souls would also not be an RPG, because you don't make any choices that affect the story (that I've seen so far! I have yet to finish it, but there has been zero conversation so far...).

well in Demon's Souls you do get to choose how the game ends so thats a choice.

 

[NeutralDrow]

IMO how you differentiated NetHack and Mass Effect apart from eah other was by their gameplay, not the genre.

That's what defines a game genre. It's why shooters, platformers, and fighting games are considered different genres.

I thought it was because there are different points and reasons to play the game in every one of them...

Shooters - you go around shooting things, that's the most important thing.
Platformers - you go around, jump from platforms and defeat enemies, story is only a minor thing here.
RPGs - story and assuming the skin of another character is the most important.

"Points and reasons" shouts gameplay to me. Just because Prince of Persia and Super Mario Brothers have a decided gap in storytelling doesn't mean the latter is more of a platformer than the other. People not like me who totally ignore the lore in World of Warcraft doesn't make it any less of an RPG. I can race through levels really fast whether I'm playing Sonic the Hedgehog or Gran Turismo, but the former is a platformer and the latter is a racing game. I can fight enemies one-on-one in Devil May Cry or Tekken, but the former is a complicated mix of action, platforming, and puzzles, while the latter is a pure fighting game.

All depends on how it's set up to play.

Yes, and you can ignore enemies in Diablo and just kill the act bosses (or have someone do it for you), you can ignore Guild Wars' PvE mode and just kill people with friends or random jerks, you can ignore trying to get the best times in NFS...

The games were DESIGNED to be in a genre. If people designed a game to be a platformer, it doesn't matter what 3-5% of the playerbase does - the game was meant to be played as a platforming game.

Exactly.

 

[RollingDigits]

An RPG is any game that chooses to call itself an RPG. It will then be judged as an RPG, of course, so as to discourage games that aren't RPGs from saying they are.

 

[Bland_Boy]

A videogame where you directly control a character or object through an virtual world that tells a story that's comparable to the worst or best of movies, while offering choices
for the player that can affect outcomes of various things in the game, not necessarily the end.

I'm sure I've described it better in the past, but this is the best I can do right now.

 

[Ickorus]

I'd say there are no RPG games as much as games you can RP in.

Im playing S.T.A.L.K.E.R at the moment and whilst by your definition it isn't an RPG I regularly find myself acting like the Stalkers right down to hunkering down by a campfire and listening to someone play the guitar.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

In order to qualify in my book, an RPG must meet one or both of the following criteria:

Character Agency - that is, simply put, direct control over my character's evolution. This can take the form of making meaningful choices with respect to skills and gear or my character's outlook on the world at large and so forth

Narrative Agency - Having control over the course and/or outcome of a plot. Even if the plot ends in the same basic place, if the route has meaningful variations in reaching that point (such as the events in Mass Effect 2) I'd call it sufficient.

 

[Corvuus]

It all really depends on how strict you want to be regarding terms and language.

If RPG just means a game where you play a role, then Heavy Rain and pretty much almost every game with a story in existence will qualify. (i.e. Mario would qualify, tetris would not).

I think the OP (and all of us) should take the time and effort to define the terms we are using before we just start throwing ideas/concepts around. It is like debating 'good vs evil' without ever defining what is 'good' and 'evil'.

--------

On a sidenote:

Any story (in any medium) will/should (if good) have at least 2 things.

1. Good payoff at the end.
There has to be a sense of accomplishment, achievement, finishing, etc. Many stories start out 'great' but fall apart and have frustratingly crappy endings... which end up tarnishing the entire story overall.

2. Enjoyable ride.
They have to convey you to the end. If it is a grindfest, boring, uninteresting characters, insipid plot, etc. that gets you there... well you may not make it to the end at all.
Books handle it one way. Games handle it with good gameplay.

----

I personally would start off RPG with a definition that the story must be integral to the overall game. (We can debate integral but for now just leave it like that).

In previous definition, Mario qualifies as a 'RPG' in the sense that you play Mario on his adventures to rescue the princess. You are 'role-playing' Mario.

Now, Mario (and many obvious cases) will not qualify as a RPG since the story is not integral to the overall game. It could be alien high school student rescuing his human girlfriend from radioactive turtles and the gameplay would still be the same. You jump on creatures heads, spit out fireballs, fly, etc. Nothing changed, etc. the 'story' is plastered on. Same with "Plants vs Zombies" originally going to be with "Aliens" but they changed. Story adds a context and nice touch, but it isn't integral to the game.

I think the next step would be to define and differentiate between two key characteristics.

1. Games where you control your character's evolution stats wise, etc.

2. Games which are "choose your own adventure"-ish in that your choices affect the overall story and potentially the end result.

Games can deliver 1 or both (or neither). Heavy rain is definitely choose your own adventure, but you don't 'level up'/control stats, etc. "old" FPS would be 'neither'. You don't choose your adventure and neither to you level up aiming, etc. System Shock and other "RPG/FPS" hybrids would claim #1 but not exactly #2 (well, only get "good, bad" ending). Final Fantasy is not #2 (linear story you 'role play through') but debatable as to how much of #1 it is. Controlling 'jobs', equipment, stats, base character template, etc.

Currently the 'latest' games (dragon age, mass effect, oblivion, etc.) are attempting to deliver #1 and #2. (and whatever else you want to add to RPG definition).

Corv

 

[Snarky Username]

RPG stands for ROLE PLAYING games. Games in which you ROLE PLAY. ROLE PLAY.

Putting stats into a character is not role playing, it's setting up a character. Role playing is when you make decisions and try to play the game through the character through customization and decision making. What would you do if you were a super awesome space captain or a super awesome medieval warrior or a super awesome nuclear war survivor? Games that have stats do not constitute an RPG. Final Fantasy has stats but you hardly role play unless you happen to be an angsty overdramatic 20 something with a terrible haircut.

 

[bismarck55]

RPG's focused more on the stats part for the player to manage, and put the story part totally in the hands of the game master, AKA the programmers. Final Fantasy, Tales series, and Diablo fall to this part.

Others focused more on the choices and the interactiveness and took the battle customisation back a bit.
Think Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Neverwinter Nights. Drago nage, Oblivion.

But at the base they are still RPG's.

ATTENTION OP: This is what we've been saying all along.

Just because a game let's you do cover-based shooting doesn't mean it's any less of an RPG. In fact, if RPGs only had stat buliding we'd get very bored because the year is 2010. Using stat building as a primary function was okay 20 years ago but no anymore I'm afraid; that may be how the genre started out, but I'm sorry to say improvements in technology means we require more to do.

Moral: If a game says RPG under 'genre', save everybody some time and just accept it.

I know exactly what you've been saying, I made this thread because I'm already familiar with this line of reasoning, and I vehemently disagree with it.

In order to qualify as an RPG, there must be a divide between character and player. Demon's Souls, my favourite game of this console generation is widely considered an RPG, but it's not. Why did my mage get better at parrying and counter-attacking after I put in 20 hours with my thief? Because I got better at using those mechanics. It is far too skill-based to be an RPG.

The same could be said of Mass Effect, and other games.

 

[Burck]

Amber "dice less" RPGs have been around for a long time, but if we are speaking only of videogame RPGs, I suppose that is as good a definition as any.
*Edit* Correct me if I'm wrong but do I sense some hostility in that definition OP?

Plenty of hostility. I got worked up reading the turn based games thread (turns systems being intimately related to RPGs, I decided to post this, seeing as there seem to be plenty of misconceptions relating to both subjects).

I think I understand how the OP seems upset about the bastardization of RPGs into something more like shooters (like Mass Effect 2). FPS-RPG hybrids like Mass Effect being called RPGs is misleading, but at the same time I have to disagree with your definition OP.

A Role Playing Game is defined by its title- that is-

A game themed around role playing.

However, that's still a loose definition, and by that definition, can't I (hypothetically) call Read Dead Redemption a role playing game because you play as John Marston? Of course not!

But why can't I? I suppose the reason is because shooters like RDR focus more on the action than role playing- evident in the fact that you do not rely more on your skill with a controller than that of the character- something the OP did rightly include in the definition of an RPG.

But one cannot deny that RDR does have RPG elements. It may be cliche, but a morality system does add a layer of role play.

But does Mass Effect 2 have more RPG elements than an FPS? I'm not sure- you'd have to tally RPG and Shooter elements to find out (but even this is subjective and makes an unreliable method).

OP, your definition is more like the definition of a aboriginal RPGs. I think that you can rightly say that, but I would debate whether or not you can exclude games like Mass Effect 2. If one of the primary focuses of the game is making decisions, that is role playing. It may not be an aboriginal RPG, but it still has RPG elements.


Conclusion: OPs definition is of aboriginal RPGs. Gameplay mechanics like "choices, story or any of that bullshit" may not have been originally part of RPG mechanics, but the fact is that if it adds to role-playing, it is a role playing element. However, this is not to say that RDR or Mass Effect 2 can be called RPGs. RDR is a 3rd Person (Sandbox) Shooter with some RPG elements thrown in like sprinkles on an ice cream cone- not essential, but added for appeal. Mass Effect 2 although definitely boasting many RPG elements would be more accurate to call an RPG-Shooter hybrid.

Just because RPGs originally were about seperating character and player skill doesn't mean that other elements don't belong to an RPG.


Any arguing this is pure semantics.

 

[Eggsnham]

Not sure I agree, but it would still make sense.

 

[Savagezion]

I think you have to have the ability to define your charactor through means of story. Alot of RPGs out there do not allow this and IMO are not true RPGs. If there is a linear series of quests and all the dialogue (your charactor included) is pre-written, then it is not a true RPG. So most of the RPGs in the 80s and 90s were not really RPGs IMO.

As you stated Bismark, you also define ytour charactor through a skill/stat system as honestly it is generally the best way using one of those 2. But another important part (very important really) is your ability to define your charactor's role in the world. That being said, having the story be predetermined no matter the player's actions then the role play bit is pretty much gone. FOr instance if I walk into a bar in a game and just be a total dickhead to the bartender every time I talk with him and everytime I come in he welcomes me with the same warm smile that he always has since the first time I met him, then my actions aren't really effecting the world and it really isn't role play. If the player is never given a choice on anything, you really haven't made an RPG.

 

[Savagezion]

If you don't already know my thoughts on this topic, you haven't been paying attention.
Either way, it's an old argument that needs to go the way of the dodo.

Role Playing =/= Choice
Role Playing = Playing a role = acting, like an actor does (you know, a scripted role).

Wow, that would make D&D the most boring game ever. Why even bother to create a charactor if the GM is just gonna hand you your lines?

EDIT: OOooo I think I will put points in Charisma this level.

Whole table: