RPGs defined

[Corvuus]

Sorry, but I 100% disagree with anyone saying that RPG in the 80s or 90s are not really RPGs.

Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, (80s-90s, etc.) games ARE RPGs. Marketed, sold, etc. as RPGs.
In fact, if I exclude all new games made within the past 5 years, then virtually all of the "good story"/RPG will be ones that you (as a player) have ZERO influence in. (Story pre-written, dialogue all laid out, pre-determined ending, etc.).

Sure, it is due to the limitations at the time and the medium has evolved but you can't just alter the definition of a word that has been used to describe something for decades to match things now even if it seemingly fits better. It is like having a genre (horror for example) and then something new happens to change the definition and now all previous 'horror' films are no longer horror? No. You give it a different name, subset or whatever. You can have 'horror', 'suspense thrillers', etc. You differentiate between them with subsets of genres if need be.

You can't re-write history. (or at least, I would prefer you not to).

Corv

 

[Akiada]

RPGs are defined by choice on their most base levels.

Game: Ho! Gamer, what be thy Character's name?

Player: Jim bob!

Game: Verily, Jim Bob, this may seem obvious, but race/gender are you?

Player: Female Elf

Game: Uh...OKAY. Class, Miss Jim Bob?

Player: Warrior!

Game: And done, let's get to adventuring, then..

And then Jim Bob the elven warrior princess goes on to specialize in fighting with bows, armors and tavern stools.

This is choice because Jim Bob's player can later go through the game with Zap Muthafukka, the Orcish mage who specializes fireballs, lightning bolts and attacking the darkness. Suddenly the game plays entirely different.

And so on. Choice is an integral part of RPGs, from chargen, to gameplay to story.

To say RPGs are simply defined by stats is silly. Why?

Because video games are electronic games, they are digital. They run on numbers. Master Chief and Ramirez and Gordon Freeman all run on stats. They have X health, they can sprint for X time before being fatigued, they can wield of variety of weapons with variable stats of their own - a shotgun that fires of a cloud of pellets where each pellet does X damage, causing damage at close range to be amplied by the volume of pellets. A sniper rifle where each shot does massive damage but DPS is hindered by the recoil and slow reload. An assault rifle with middle-ish damage, minimal recoil and a swift fire rate, etc. etc. etc.

These games have stats. But they are not RPGs because I cannot change anything. I have no choices. No matter what MC always is MC and he always does the same thing. Gordon is always a mute murder-tastic scientist. Ramirez always has to do whatever his superior officer is telling him to do at the moment and so on.

 

[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?

We are discussing video game RPGs. Not PnP RPGs.

Well, by your definition Mario Bros. is an RPG. I am playing the role of a plumber in the Mushroom Kingdom. What sets an RPG apart from any game with a story by your definition?

 

[Savagezion]

Sorry, but I 100% disagree with anyone saying that RPG in the 80s or 90s are not really RPGs.

Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, (80s-90s, etc.) games ARE RPGs. Marketed, sold, etc. as RPGs.
In fact, if I exclude all new games made within the past 5 years, then virtually all of the "good story"/RPG will be ones that you (as a player) have ZERO influence in. (Story pre-written, dialogue all laid out, pre-determined ending, etc.).

I said most. I will say that I do not find Final Fantasy to be a role playing game as you actively do nothing to play cloud's part, he does it all for you. Chrono trigger at least allows you to altar stuff. In final fantasy you role play squat. I refer to these as roll play games. (Basically a stat based game with a dice roll making combat calls)

Sure, it is due to the limitations at the time and the medium has evolved but you can't just alter the definition of a word that has been used to describe something for decades to match things now even if it seemingly fits better. It is like having a genre (horror for example) and then something new happens to change the definition and now all previous 'horror' films are no longer horror? No. You give it a different name, subset or whatever. You can have 'horror', 'suspense thrillers', etc. You differentiate between them with subsets of genres if need be.

You can't re-write history. (or at least, I would prefer you not to).

Corv

Indeed I can because I don't think that people who claimed them to be RPGs were accurate. They disected 1 element out of true RPGs (combat mechanics) and said look, I made an RPG. I wouldn't be opposed to Iceland or Greenland renaming themselves today seeing as they got their names through deceptive tactics. We now live in a day and age where the medium has evolved and we can actually hold something up to the RPG title for what it is, not what it was when VGs sucked. Real RPGs were out before VGs existed so they get the honor of defining what they are. Not Final Fantasy who just used their combat system and called it an RPG. If I make a puzzle game where you use a gun to solve all the puzzles is it ok to call it a shooter?

I don't mind saying Final Fantasy is a subset to RPGs as that is what I always see them as. My term is "Roll playing game" coined after how combat works.

@s69-5: So you agree with the OP? Stats make an rpg?

 

[tautologico]

Nothing on a computer or console qualifies as a real RPG to this old fart. A roleplaying game involves two or more people at a table with some books and dice. "RPGs" on the computer are just using the name as shorthand for "This game has some math in it, and you can dress up your dudes." Nothing wrong with that, mind you, and I'm not really sure why anyone would get worked up over semantics and nomenclature.
CRPG, JRPG, Hack n' slash, action strategy shooter with inventory management and a side of fries? All that matters is whether or not you enjoy it.

This is what I say when people start with "Game X is not a RPG!". No computer game/videogame has the same degree of freedom, the same possibilities of playing a role as a pen&paper, tabletop RPG.

So even Fallout 1&2 and other classic RPGs are "dumbed down" (something RPG elitists like to talk a lot) for the masses already.

 

[AMMO Kid]

I'd say this feels more like a cheap shot at Mass Effect by the creator's post than a "what is an RPG" thread. But seriously, the first Mass Effect was more of an RPG than the second one.

 

[quack35]

RPGs are games that are labeled as RPGs.

 

[JeanLuc761]

No. Story, choices and all of those are RPG things. Mass Effect = RPG, whether you like it or not.

This man speaks of the truth.

If in a conversation, someone says Hello and you are given a choice between responding with G'day or Fuck Off then you are playing the character's role, and therefore you are roleplaying.

If it dresses like and RPG and farts like an RPG then there's a good chance it's an RPG.

Agreed with these two. Mass Effect and Dragon Age are, bar none, the best, and purest RPG's I've ever played in my life. I can create a character, I can influence who he is, I can influence the story, I can influence my allies. Everything about it is designed around making your character into a ROLE.

I don't define an RPG by stat-building and loot amassing, I define it by how much I can influence as my character. Basically, any RPG Bioware has made is my definition of an RPG.

 

[Feriluce]

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.

Why must you be divided from your character for it to be classified as an RPG. Thats retarded, as you ARE your character in an RPG.

You insert yourself into the game as your character in an RPG. Thats the beauty of RPG's. You get to experience how it is to live in the world depicted in the RPG. You get to interact with it and you get to shape it. Your character doesn't do that. If it did there wouldn't be much game involved. Then it would just be a movie or possibly a jRPG. Your character is simply just an empty shell that acts as your link to the world.

Basically the thing that seperates RPG's from other games is that you are taking on the role of your character rather than playing as a little man that riding your characters back and controlling it. Thats why shooters are generally not RPG's.

 

[Corvuus]

well, agree to disagree.

To me, all the new 'genre' is a subset of RPG that is "choose your own adventure" taken to extreme sandboxing. The lack of story choice should not disqualify a game from being a RPG especially when it is far from the norm in video games right now.

----

I think i'll just say everyone should just go read this and let this thread die.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game

C

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

An RPG is a Rocket Propelled Grenade. They are typically a shoulder-fired weapon that fire a shape-charge warhead, used against armored ground vehicles and choppers.

 

[MercurySteam]

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.

So basically the point of this thread is that you disagree with the industry's definition of an RPG. This thread is now offically a flame thread if we can't communicate to you why everyone else sees RPGs as, well, RPGs.

 

[Savagezion]

@s69-5: So you agree with the OP? Stats make an rpg?

No. It's merely a component.
Many things combine to make an RPG. But stats (and levels) are pretty important, yes.

For example, Zelda is not an RPG. But Secret of Mana is.

I am just using your quote here as you bring up a good point. (I haven't played SoM.) Your point on Zelda is interesting. IF Zelda came out with a new game that allowed for 20 different possible endings, 5 of which you don't save Hyrule, 8 of which the Link dies but saves Hyrule, the other 12 just variations of him saving Hyrule. And you influence the world around you through choices you make in the game and various ways you complete objectives. However, no stats are present.

I would say this is more of an RPG than FF. Does anyone disagree with that?

 

[Biosophilogical]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I define an RPG as a game in which you play a role. That sounds stupid, I know, but bear with me. A game where you play as a character whose experience you shape through your choices and interactions with other characters is an RPG. It doesn't matter whether or not there are levels or experience points or stats. I would actually present Mass Effect as one of the best examples of what I'd consider an RPG. It goes against my definition somewhat in that the plot isn't completely altered based on your decisions, but you can create a unique individual character.

I agree with pretty much that. Though in all games you play a role of some sort, some are more flexible than others.

So whilst in both inFamous and Fallout you play a role, inFamous is a pre-fixed role and Fallout is one in which you define the role you play. Yes a key element of RPGs is definitely stats and abilities... essentially a ROLE PLAYING game is about... playing a role...

This always threw me a bit. Is a role-playing game one where you assume a role (so it is your choices, your stats, your ... whatever) or is it one where you assume the role (Like in FFX where you play as Tidus, who uses swords, has fixed plot-actions, a personality, etc)?

But I guess I see where the OP is coming from, even if I find it a bit narrow. For me an RPG has always been about the ability to have some level of customization (and personalisation effectively). So in something like Zelda, you don't really level up, you don't really make plot-changing choices or anything really, where as is in something like Fable or FFX or something, you can choose different courses of action or you can level up your character differently or use a different weapon type, etc.

 

[Kimarous]

RPGs are wargames wherein you control an individual defined by numbers so as to separate player skill/knowledge/ability and character skill/knowledge/abilty. It is not about choices, story or any of that bullshit. NetHack = RPG, Mass Effect = chest-high-wall-shooter.

Anyone agree?

Wrong! Wrong! WRONG!

RPG stands for "ROLE playing game", not "ROLL playing game!" It is about filling a ROLE, not ROLLING for stats!

 

[geddydisciple]

RPG's are "Role Playing Games" That is what they are about. While the story, character creation, and combat are usually big portions of a rpg it's the ability to role play that defines an RPG.

 

[Corvuus]

In order to qualify as an RPG, there must be a divide between character and player. It is far too skill-based to be an RPG.

I don't think I understand this. If a game depends on the skill level of a player at all, then it isn't a RPG?

Any real-time game will depend some amount on skill (whether reaction time or whatever, heck even WoW has 'some' skill involved even if it is just pushing buttons at the right time) so if your definition is that an RPG have zero dependence on the player... as a person... then it would have to be turn-based.

So you think only turn-based is RPG?

 

[spacecowboy86]

i believe loadingreadyrun did a podcast on their site titled "rpg?" in which they define very clearly an rpg. they say something something like there are many different rpg elements in existence. a common, strong one is character and stat progression like you said but others include things like, branching stories affected by your decisions, and custumizable characters. they state that once a game has enough rpg elements that they control the majority of gameplay, the game can be categorized as an "rpg".