What defines the genre of RPG?

[Volafortis]

I think that in order to be an RPG, you need to help define your characters' social role in their world.

Sure, this leaves out a lot of JRPGs, but I'm in the camp of "most JRPGs aren't technically RPGs."

 

[chuckman1]

I'd say stats define it.
Not like COD gun stats tho it does have rpg elements but like
Strength 28
Perception 12
Endurance 81
Charisma 11
Inteligince 21
A
L
LEVEL UP
Strength 20
Perception 14
etc

 

[Smooth Operator]

I propose a simple definition for RPG's -> Choice that matters (in story, characters, dialogue, items, abilities, combat, exploration, ... )
And if anyone wants to see how this is done simply look up the pioneers in the genre, where they really tried to branch out the worlds and stories in all sorts of directions.

 

[Nimcha]

Does it really matter? Genres are only used to these days to put down games by saying they do not fit a particular one. Pointless.

 

[veloper]

If the game features character advancement through experience and equipment, it can be called a RPG, unless it also fits in another genre such as strategy and the the game company prefers to call it that instead.

There are no other criteria. The CRPG can be turn-based, RTWP, a shooter, anything. Solo or AI party or multiplayer. Anything goes.

The term is almost meaningless. Use subgenres instead: Action-RPG, JRPG, RPSshooter, diablo clone, SRPG.

 

[lady man lady]

two important things- an inventory and a leveling system.

 

[Mokuren]

I think the real difference between the two genres are a little more simpler though again not perfect. In western rpgs they tend to focus on the main character being the player, while in jrpgs, the player only observes what the main character is doing.

A million times this.

Never in a JRPG I've had the chance to do anything that really mattered, or that actually changed the story. No matter how fun it could eventually be, all that I was doing was lead a bunch of people of whom I could, at best, change the name and that spoke, interacted, made choices and went on their already defined path without me being able to do anything about it at all.

In all JRPGs I've ever played, all that the player can do is, at best, uncover secrets that are all about either finding uber weapons or fighting incredibly tough monsters that usually have absolutely no relevance or meaning to the plot. Granted, some of the times being able to beat them might change the ending... But that's it, the best a JRPG has, in terms of impact in the story, is there being multiple endings, though by "multiple" it most often is "Good end" and "Golden end", and that's about it.

I don't remember ever playing a JRPG where you can branch off and do secondary quests and not only receive mechanical rewards, but also story ones: even things as simple as siding with some guys instead of others or solving a dispute in a way or another or saving a village or a castle or whatever, and then have the world react to that, even just by having people comment on such events like the Mass Effect elevator scenes, or in Baldur's Gate II where you could rescue the De'Arnise manor from the trolls and take it for yourself, same goes for the giant sphere in the middle of town that you could then use as wizard's tower and raise pupils.

Granted, many times these things do not have a HUGE impact even in western RPGs, except in spectacular masterpieces such as Planescape: Torment or Deus Ex where everything you do makes you feel like you've accomplished something unique instead of being put on railroads... But it's still something, you usually get something to feel accomplished that isn't just "A +1000 ATK sword that comes out of nowhere and no one will ever talk about it as if what you just did happened in an isolated void of a different dimension" as it often happens in JRPG optionals.

I think that's the gist of it: it's not just the character creation and customization (though the latter is being lost more and more and more and more lately, as it's apparently too much of a bother), but also the fact that you do not feel like you're a train on rails and all that you control is whether you actually get to see the predetermined cutscenes up until the ending or not. That's the real difference.

 

[ramboondiea]

i hate the term rpg, i think its applied backwards, your play a role in every game, but in games like fallout ect you have the opportunity to play as yourself, or atleast the freedom to play as yourself, and admittedly that is still a role, but not in the same sense as other games which assign you a character a story and and set way of playing.

 

[SadisticBrownie]

I'd say freedom. Obviously this is a little restricted on JRPGs but eventually you have a whole world at your hands to explore and you can revisit previous areas. And obviously, levelling up.

 

[Farther than stars]

I've always considered RPGs to be as having an emphasis on choice and development above all else. Indeed, it is usually critical to that decision-making that you great a complex and immersive story (that's western RPGs anyway), but I can think of a couple of exceptions to that rule.
As for "The Legend of Zelda" games, there are clear RPG elements present there and I definitely wouldn't argue over it with anyone who said it was an RPG. After all, sure the role is defined for you, but as with Fallout, the protagonist is mute so the player can still project himself onto Link in some sense. Also, the collection of different items, the ability to take potions with you, the increasing of your health meter, those are all well-defined RPG elements. And then although the story progresses along a rather linear track, you are given the option of exploring certain areas, like the towns or in "The Wind Waker" all across the ocean.

 

[Farther than stars]

This is lovely. I'm hearing so many interesting arguments here to which I can contribute. So... First off:

Sounds like Mass Effect 1 (and 2) to me.
Now where are those pricks who were trying to tell me Mass Effect is not an RPG?

Although I'd definitely class Mass Effect as an RPG, you have to admit that with real-time fire, it is a little bit of a mixture between the ubiquitous "shooter" genre and the now-discussed RPG.
And it's because of this power lent by "the gun" that reflexive skill comes to play a far bigger part in the game than in any other RPG I can think of. It's your handling of the real-time fire situations that will give you most of the edge, like in most shooters. In fact, at the end of the game I think I had like 14 points left to spend because I couldn't think of what they would be useful for. So, I guess I least it has the balance issues of RPGs locked down, ey? ;P

Does it really matter? Genres are only used to these days to put down games by saying they do not fit a particular one. Pointless.

Well, in general terms it does matter, since knowing what kind of genres you're into helps you choose what kind of games you might like to buy. Defining those genres equally gives you a better understanding of those types of games.
For instance, I know I like Shooters and Puzzle-platformers, so I'll be more drawn to games of those genres. And I know I'm not a good singer and that I get frustrated over sports, so don't buy the kind of games associated with those subjects (even if it is out of consideration for the people I live with ;P).
My point just is, when I'm in a shop, being albe to tell the difference between an RPG and a Puzzle-platformer, for example, can really aid your purchasing needs.

Never in a JRPG I've had the chance to do anything that really mattered, or that actually changed the story. No matter how fun it could eventually be, all that I was doing was lead a bunch of people of whom I could, at best, change the name and that spoke, interacted, made choices and went on their already defined path without me being able to do anything about it at all.

I think it's important to remember that that huge cultural divide between the west and Japan plays a great role in how stories are set up and, in turn, how those result in a game.
You see, Japan is a country in which the concept of "fate" and thus a pre-determined chronology are more inherent to its culture and will thus influence its game-design in such a way that it shows in the actual gameplay.
And you may have guessed where I'm going with this, but the west has relatively recently developed a cultural affinity for liberty, especially the U.S. in which freedom is the value most inherent to the nation. But also think of the French and their revolution, which called for freedom as an escape from oppression; or the English, who established their democracy as early as the 15th century. So as you can see, western culture suggest a route far more inclined to giving an individual "choice" as to how to shape events, which shines through as a mechanic in a lot of western-created video games.
My point is, when you say it could eventually be "fun" to have more freedom in JRPGs, you are really speaking from a point of view inclined to your culture, which is fine. But then video game creators in a different country, who generally target a different audience, probably won't cater for that experience.

I think that's the gist of it: it's not just the character creation and customization (though the latter is being lost more and more and more and more lately, as it's apparently too much of a bother), but also the fact that you do not feel like you're a train on rails and all that you control is whether you actually get to see the predetermined cutscenes up until the ending or not. That's the real difference.

Just a heads up: what you just described there can also be attributed to Saints Row 2, which is a sandbox and very much not an RPG. All I'm saying is that when you define an RPG, that's something you have to look out for, since it can often be said that an RPG is a sandbox, but not the other way round.

 

[kingcom]

i hate the term rpg, i think its applied backwards, your play a role in every game, but in games like fallout ect you have the opportunity to play as yourself, or atleast the freedom to play as yourself, and admittedly that is still a role, but not in the same sense as other games which assign you a character a story and and set way of playing.

Thats not strictly accurate. If you were yourself, you would not have many of the capabilities that the character in the game does. Your playing a character who you influence the decisions of, that is not yourself, your playing out decisions based upon someone else's circumstance, skills and perceptions, thats an entirely different role to yourself. Thats what the term 'role playing' came from, and first applied in Chainmail (though i know it existed in other games, was never called so until then) and subsequently Dungeons and Dragons.

Never in a JRPG I've had the chance to do anything that really mattered, or that actually changed the story. No matter how fun it could eventually be, all that I was doing was lead a bunch of people of whom I could, at best, change the name and that spoke, interacted, made choices and went on their already defined path without me being able to do anything about it at all.

I think it's important to remember that that huge cultural divide between the west and Japan plays a great role in how stories are set up and, in turn, how those result in a game.
You see, Japan is a country in which the concept of "fate" and thus a pre-determined chronology are more inherent to its culture and will thus influence its game-design in such a way that it shows in the actual gameplay.
And you may have guessed where I'm going with this, but the west has relatively recently developed a cultural affinity for liberty, especially the U.S. in which freedom is the value most inherent to the nation. But also think of the French and their revolution, which called for freedom as an escape from oppression; or the English, who established their democracy as early as the 15th century. So as you can see, western culture suggest a route far more inclined to giving an individual "choice" as to how to shape events, which shines through as a mechanic in a lot of western-created video games.
My point is, when you say it could eventually be "fun" to have more freedom in JRPGs, you are really speaking from a point of view inclined to your culture, which is fine. But then video game creators in a different country, who generally target a different audience, probably won't cater for that experience.

So someone watches Extra Credits.... Anyway claiming that a person's fundamental development of what is 'fun' is a cultural is wrong. Hes talking fun from an individual perspective. I know I like choice and freedom in a video game because in real life I don't have any, I live, work and then I die and nothing I can do will change that. None of that is certain in a videogame. To be perfectly honest I don't really understand what your trying to say in that last section. JRPGs sell reasonably well in the west, that seems to point out that there isnt an overriding right and wrong in terms of cultural perspective. He's saying he would enjoy jrpgs if he was allowed to choose thats fine, you seem to be pointing out that people have different opinions. Thats seems a little redundant.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Having written on this exact subject a great many times, I will simply summarize my position. What makes a game an RPG is agency. The more agency a player has over the narrative or their character, the more universally it will be recognized as an RPG.

 

[Stall]

Storyline/quest emphasis can't really be part of the definition. The whole choice thing can't be one either. Demons Souls is a good example otherwise. You really have no choice in the game in terms of story... you just basically do the levels. A second counterpoint is an MMORPG-- you essentially make no choices for your character, and if you do, they are so minor that they virtually have no impact. If you use the definition of choice having some kind of impact, or guiding a character through a quest, then you can no longer really define these games as RPGs, despite the fact that they are.

The complexity and mathematical aspects of RPGs are the game's most telling traits, where characterization of the player character (tautological... meh) is done significantly through stats and levels. It's also important to note that the stats and levels are the most influential part of the outcome of a battle, or else you can have games with RPG elements fall under the definition.

 

[The3rdEye]

Until recently with the Bioware series, character development and interaction between the player and their friends was a JRPG staple, where learning about the PC's friends was as important to the progression of the story as the next battle.

Wait, 1996 is recently? Baldur's Gate had a fairly stron inter-party narrative and it extended even more so in its sequel.

You may very well be right with Baldur's Gate (1998), and there are other WRPG's that I have not played although I did preface everything with "my perspective" which can only be formed from what I know. I do know that while Baldur's Gate was very successful, Mass Effect and to a slightly lesser extent Dragons Age are on the forefront of Bioware's contribution to the genre, if not the industry as a whole.

Seems like your not entirely on the spot about j and w rpgs. Many western rpgs follow the what is the blank. Planescape Torment's examination of "What can change the nature of a man?" Not to mention everything the Ultima series did, as both a party interaction and the player trying to uncover what it means to be virtuous and how concepts that are good can very easily be twisted into evil.

I think the real difference between the two genres are a little more simpler though again not perfect. In western rpgs they tend to focus on the main character being the player, while in jrpgs, the player only observes what the main character is doing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last paragraph. In Chrono Trigger I am still the main character around whom the story revolves and in KoToR I'm watching events unfold as a result of my actions.

I did not infer that western RPG's do not pursue the definition of heroism or "blank", rather that WRPG's focus on structured definitions and progress whereas JRPGs tend to be about the more human elements. I said that JRPGs present what it means to be a hero, the internal conflicts and personal limitations of the hero as a character and imperfect being. I stated that WRPG heroes tend to be battling external and/or impersonal forces rather than inner demons and personal shortcoming, even if JRPGs tend to lay those elements on rather thickly. There's a reason why people make disparaging remarks regarding Final Fantasy protagonists to be too angst ridden and WRPG heroes being too impersonal.

 

[ManInRed]

I typically define an RPG as a game where either having its primary game play be:
(A) Have a battle mode, where controls or interface changes when you engage in combat, or
(B) Players are able to control more than one unit in their party

Any other definition and you seem to overlay RPG with other genres, the most similar being Adventure games, and the Metroidvania games also called Adventure-RPG's. As for levels, turn base play, or story -any genre short of an Arcade game usually has these elements somewhere. And one can point out RPG's with no levels, no turn base combat, and rarely no story.

Now these rules aren't enough to differentiate and RPG from some Tactical or Strategy games, but I add the additional rules that Tactical games have an Environment to the battlefield, and Strategy games allow players to alter the Environment. So there's a clear distinction of game play without needing rules relating to leveling or story.

 

[kingcom]

You may very well be right with Baldur's Gate (1998), and there are other WRPG's that I have not played although I did preface everything with "my perspective" which can only be formed from what I know. I do know that while Baldur's Gate was very successful, Mass Effect and to a slightly lesser extent Dragons Age are on the forefront of Bioware's contribution to the genre, if not the industry as a whole.

Ah my mistake on the date (though still not what I would call recent particularly in the video game world) but if your honestly trying to say Dragon Age and Mass Effect is at the forefront of Bioware's contribution to the genre. I really have to laugh a bit. Western RPGs would be dead if it wasnt for Fallout and Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age is nothing but Baldur's gate and Mass Effect's only notible contribution is to combine rpgs with other genres (which was already happening in the opposite direction).

Seems like your not entirely on the spot about j and w rpgs. Many western rpgs follow the what is the blank. Planescape Torment's examination of "What can change the nature of a man?" Not to mention everything the Ultima series did, as both a party interaction and the player trying to uncover what it means to be virtuous and how concepts that are good can very easily be twisted into evil.

I think the real difference between the two genres are a little more simpler though again not perfect. In western rpgs they tend to focus on the main character being the player, while in jrpgs, the player only observes what the main character is doing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last paragraph. In Chrono Trigger I am still the main character around whom the story revolves and in KoToR I'm watching events unfold as a result of my actions.

I've not played Chrono Trigger so what I say is going on second hand knowledge in relation to this but let me ask, is the main character different as a direct result of the player's actions (not simply as a result of the player advancing the plot)? If the answer is no, then my previous definition gains a bit more weight. Using a safe analogy take the Final Fantasy series since your aware of them. You are not Titus, Squall or any other protaganist. You do not influence their interactions in any way but simply observe what they do. In KoToR you can choose to treat a person well or treat them badly. Your character is a fundamentally different person based upon their interactions as determined by the player. A common attribute to wrpgs and not jrpgs.

I did not infer that western RPG's do not pursue the definition of heroism or "blank", rather that WRPG's focus on structured definitions and progress whereas JRPGs tend to be about the more human elements. I said that JRPGs present what it means to be a hero, the internal conflicts and personal limitations of the hero as a character and imperfect being. I stated that WRPG heroes tend to be battling external and/or impersonal forces rather than inner demons and personal shortcoming, even if JRPGs tend to lay those elements on rather thickly. There's a reason why people make disparaging remarks regarding Final Fantasy protagonists to be too angst ridden and WRPG heroes being too impersonal.

Yes, I can conceed that on the average JRPGs protaganists focus on internal demons but so do many many western rpgs (although due to the changable nature of the protaganist that isn't always so easy to do). Planescape Torment was built around this. The protaganist spends the entire game trying to uncover who they are and how they came to be. Be they hero or villain, in the process of self-discovery the player however can draw their own conclusions as to what can change the nature of a man, as his life has lead him to the end of the game. Similiarly Baldur's Gate 2 did the same thing, that despite the protaganist's curse (or blessing), does that determine who he/she is? To keep going with KoToR, Carth has to deal with his trust issues due to the betrayal in the past and getting him to meaningfully follow the Player Character into the jaws of hell is a developmental process throughout the game Or Zaalbar's internal turmoil at the whole madclaw stuff.

Ultima Ascension (while being a terrible game) is built around the Avatar encountering his former companions and how the former Virtue's of the world have twisted them into becoming his enemy.

 

[Ranorak]

This again?

anyway.

We got the Role Play part, where you live out a role, either your own or that of a pre-set script.
But like you said, more and more game have this.

The second is Roll Play.
The mechanics behind a character.
Unlike most games, a Role play game doesn't use YOUR skills so much as it uses the character's.
Your aim is irrelevant, it's the character's accuracy.
your reaction time is irrelevant, that fire ball is going miss because the stats say so.

Of course not all RPG's these day follow those rules to the letter, but lets be honest, demanding a genre stays within it's rules is just narrow.

 

[Hyper-space]

The problem with defining the genre is that we have yet to see its full-range in terms of gameplay and structure, what with only a recent evolution in the traditional gameplay-elements happening it has for the most part been kind of the same. But, when i say the same, i mean in a way that most forms of character differentiation come in the form of numbers which you assign to your character by leveling up, which in turn comes when you either defeat enemies or complete quests. Not to mention the way you acquire new items and such (killing/looting enemies/chests), which i think Mass Effect 2 was the only recent game that tried to go about it in a different way.

But as RPG's cannot be determined by theme (horror, sci-fi, fantasy, contemporary, etc.) nor a particular genre, whether it be RTS/FPS/Racing/Sports/whatever, i would say that RPGs transcend any traditional classification and therefore should be in a third echelon of game-classification (the other two being genre and theme). Even those older titles that we consider to be RPG-only should be reclassified as something else, so something along the lines of Baldurs Gate or the Icewind dale series could be called Tactical-adventure RPG, while games such as Kingdom of Amalur or the Elder Scrolls series could be called Action-adventure RPG.

This, i think, is the only way to properly classify what we call RPGs without any inconsistencies in terms of gameplay and classification.