What is a RPG?

[Tiger Sora]

This is an RPG.

But about the game genera. The dozens of answers before this have done what I need to say.

 

[Imbechile]

What is a RPG?

To me RPG's are where your character skills, and not yours, determine the outcome(Fallout 1, Baldur's gate, Arcanum)
When there is a mix between your and your character's skills those are action-RPG hybrids(Deus ex, System shock 2)
When your skills govern the success then that's an action game with RPG elements(Deus ex Human revolution, Mass Effect 2)
Shaping your character doesn't mean a thing(Temple of Elemental Evil and Icewind Dale don't let you do that). Mass effect IS an action game with RPG elements, not a real RPG.

Simple as that.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

To me RPG's are where your character skills, and not yours, determine the outcome

I don't understand how that is your criteria as that does not consist of role-playing. Then, any strategy game is a RPG. Why can't a role-playing simply just have to focus on role-playing and nothing else? Shooters need shooting, platformers need platforming, RPGs should need role-playing. Why call it a RPG if role-playing isn't even part of the game? Call it a tactical combat game or something.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

To me RPG's are where your character skills, and not yours, determine the outcome

I don't understand how that is your criteria as that does not consist of role-playing. Then, any strategy game is a RPG. Why can't a role-playing simply just have to focus on role-playing and nothing else? Shooters need shooting, platformers need platforming, RPGs should need role-playing. Why call it a RPG if role-playing isn't even part of the game? Call it a tactical combat game or something.

Well, a great number of us RPG players don't need the game to have any role-playing as you describe it. Now I know why I asked that question. You are presenting your opinion as if it is fact.

 

[RandV80]

You don't really need to try and define it, RPG is just a genre title, rather just take some history into account. I'm not an expert or anything, but I believe it goes something like this...

From the start a video game RPG took it's origins from pen & paper role playing games, specifically Dungeon's & Dragons. The technology of the time could in no way re-create a true p&p experience, so some liberties had to be taken. While the very first Western and Japanese RPG's were actually quite similar, as the developers and technology improved Western developers stayed in the D&D influence, while the Japanese had no such background and expanded out in their own direction, adding manga and anime influences in pretty much as soon as they could. Another distinction that should also be noted, console and console games in the 80's and 90's were primarily developed in Japan, so the JRPG's were just known as RPG's on the console. Meanwhile the Western developers were making RPG's for PC so these were known as CRPG's.

Everything changed this past decade though when Microsoft entered the console race, and brought the CRPG developers to the console. Before that I don't think anyone really cared about the question "what makes an RPG?", they just were what they were. But now you started getting the Japanese games right alongside the Computer games both calling themselves "RPG's", and it left the new generation of gamers confused. That's why we now make the distinction of JRPG and WRPG.

 

[Imbechile]

To me RPG's are where your character skills, and not yours, determine the outcome

I don't understand how that is your criteria as that does not consist of role-playing. Then, any strategy game is a RPG.

Read my post again. I said character. In a strategy game you control an army, an expendable one that can't grow in stats, nor do the units feature any variety. A unit that is called a blue tank is constant. You will never produce a weaker or a stronger version of the blue tank, and neither can blue tanks specialise in diffrent things.

Why can't a role-playing simply just have to focus on role-playing and nothing else? Shooters need shooting, platformers need platforming, RPGs should need role-playing. Why call it a RPG if role-playing isn't even part of the game? Call it a tactical combat game or something.

Role playing involves stats. Mass effect lets you play a role, therefore it is some type of RPG. Since your skills decide the outcome, it's an action game with RPG elements.

Role-playing video games have it's roots in tabletop RPGs, and, since in tabletop RPGs your character skills determine the outcome, true RPGs are the ones that put the emphasise on you character skills.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Well, a great number of us RPG players don't need the game to have any role-playing as you describe it. Now I know why I asked that question. You are presenting your opinion as if it is fact.

The topic should be discussing what is role-playing? Once you have a definition for it, you have the core component of what makes up a RPG. I don't understand how RPG players can be considered RPG players when you don't play games with role-playing. That's like calling yourself a baseball player when you don't play baseball. Or not requiring a platformer to focus on platforming; us platformer gamers don't need the game to have platforming. When a game just had combat and no role-playing, it was called a wargame. Then, when someone added in role-playing (basically what I described in the initial post), the games took on the name of RPGs; that is a fact.

From the start a video game RPG took it's origins from pen & paper role playing games, specifically Dungeon's & Dragons. The technology of the time could in no way re-create a true p&p experience, so some liberties had to be taken. While the very first Western and Japanese RPG's were actually quite similar, as the developers and technology improved Western developers stayed in the D&D influence, while the Japanese had no such background and expanded out in their own direction, adding manga and anime influences in pretty much as soon as they could. Another distinction that should also be noted, console and console games in the 80's and 90's were primarily developed in Japan, so the JRPG's were just known as RPG's on the console. Meanwhile the Western developers were making RPG's for PC so these were known as CRPG's.

You are right about the history. I don't think the limitations of early video game hardware should cause a genre to change into something it's not. Those early games should not have been called RPGs. If you are going to strip out what is the crux of the genre, then it is no long that genre anymore.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Well, a great number of us RPG players don't need the game to have any role-playing as you describe it. Now I know why I asked that question. You are presenting your opinion as if it is fact.

The topic should be discussing what is role-playing? Once you have a definition for it, you have the core component of what makes up a RPG. I don't understand how RPG players can be considered RPG players when you don't play games with role-playing. That's like calling yourself a baseball player when you don't play baseball. Or not requiring a platformer to focus on platforming; us platformer gamers don't need the game to have platforming. When a game just had combat and no role-playing, it was called a wargame. Then, when someone added in role-playing (basically what I described in the initial post), the games took on the name of RPGs; that is a fact.

From the start a video game RPG took it's origins from pen & paper role playing games, specifically Dungeon's & Dragons. The technology of the time could in no way re-create a true p&p experience, so some liberties had to be taken. While the very first Western and Japanese RPG's were actually quite similar, as the developers and technology improved Western developers stayed in the D&D influence, while the Japanese had no such background and expanded out in their own direction, adding manga and anime influences in pretty much as soon as they could. Another distinction that should also be noted, console and console games in the 80's and 90's were primarily developed in Japan, so the JRPG's were just known as RPG's on the console. Meanwhile the Western developers were making RPG's for PC so these were known as CRPG's.

You are right about the history. I don't think the limitations of early video game hardware should cause a genre to change into something it's not. Those early games should not have been called RPGs. If you are going to strip out what is the crux of the genre, then it is no long that genre anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game
Not really. Video game RPGs never focused on role-playing. That is a fact.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

D&D originated from wargames which was a tactical combat game. So that was the base to build upon. Everything was built around the rules and combat.

DnD wouldn't be a RPG without the role-playing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game
Not really. Video game RPGs never focused on role-playing. That is a fact.

1st paragraph from the Wikipedia link:
Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) are a video game genre with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games[1] such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.

Combat is not even mentioned in the description of a video game RPG. That description also includes "player character development." Therefore, the player is responsible for character development, not the script. Leveling up a character's stats and skills is consider character advancement.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

D&D originated from wargames which was a tactical combat game. So that was the base to build upon. Everything was built around the rules and combat.

DnD wouldn't be a RPG without the role-playing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game
Not really. Video game RPGs never focused on role-playing. That is a fact.

1st paragraph from the Wikipedia link:
Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) are a video game genre with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games[1] such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.

Combat is not even mentioned in the description of a video game RPG. That description also includes "player character development." Therefore, the player is responsible for character development, not the script. Leveling up a character's stats and skills is consider character advancement.

This is just going in circles. Lets agree to disagree. This is where I would point out early RPGs and you would present a counter argument....we aren't changing the other's opinion. I just ask that you stop presenting yours as fact.

 

[Joccaren]

Why can't a role-playing simply just have to focus on role-playing and nothing else?

I'll get to the rest of the stuff later, but a response to this:
Because that tells us NOTHING about the game, and the whole point of having genres is to tell us something about each game.

As I said, you've never heard of CoD before, I tell you its an RPG. What do you expect? Most people will expect a top down tactical experience with stats, levels, progression and a good story. You, apparently, would expect nothing except dialogue choices ala Mass Effect.

If there is no point to a genre, why even have it exist?. There is no point to the RPG genre under your definition, and therefore no reason for it to exist.

'Shooters must involve shooting' of course, like RPGs must involve role playing, but shooters must involve shooting - in Starcraft 2 my marines shoot. Does that make it a third person shooter?
Hell, I can even force sniper shots from my ghost, so I have control over my shots when I turn on cease fire.
Jagged Alliance contains a lot of shooting - is it a shooter?
In Skyrim I shoot magic and bows - is it an FPS?

Simply 'it must involve shooting' tells us very little about the game itself. Vague comments like this help none at all.

Now, on to other posts - note to mods: Please forgive me if I don't constantly do an edit, I will try to but its getting close to time for work and I may forget in the rush to get ready.

What this means is that we must have a quantifiable line of 'Affects the direction and outcome of the game' that playing a role must meat in order to qualify as role playing. You quantify this line as being in control of more than just whether [character] lives or dies. By deciding whether the character lives or dies however, you have already achieved a greater level of control than any other medium - and gained the capacity to change the outcome of the game. In a movie, you cannot change how it will end. When playing any game, you can change how it ends. You die, it ends differently to if you survive and finish the game.

Granted, in games like Batman there is not a lot of ability to change the direction of the game, other than a sudden turn to death, but there isn't a ton of that in Mass Effect 2 either. The direction of the game is always towards attacking the collector base. Now, add in Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, and there may be some more of that if you include the series as one big RP (Which I would argue it should be: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts), but as of yet we have no idea whether it will or won't.

I ask you, why do you quantify the line as being able to change more than whether the character lives or dies? Other than you just don't feel like its role playing, I would like to hear your perspective on the matter.

If you consider having say over the main character living or dying role-playing, then 99+% of games are RPGs then. And, dying doesn't change the outcome of a game unless you literally stop playing the game after you die. Batman AC still ends the same way regardless of whether you die 100 times or never die. You can't alter Batman's fate or any other character's fate at any point in the game. You actually have more role-playing to do as Catwoman than Batman because there is a different ending depending on what you do as Catwoman (although it's more of an Easter egg than anything). If there was a game that played out exactly like Die Hard, the game would still end exactly like the movie; John McClane would forget his shoes, Hans Gruber will be looking for his detonators, etc. Even with the control and interactivity given to the player, almost every game plays out just as a movie does. You don't really have a say in anything. Giving you control and interactivity does not unequivocally result in role-playing. In Heavy Rain, death actually changes things and has consequences because if a character dies, the game continues on. Heavy Rain is actually kind of close to being a role-playing game, it would need much more dialog choice as it already has pretty good story choice for a video game.

I will accept that as a reason, though the whole 'The game will always end the same way as you can reload' is a bit of bull right there. Reloading is for those who either:
a) Don't want to RP
b) Are too weak to restart the whole game

I would equate it to a DM giving some divine intervention to a player that would otherwise die, or letting them re-roll a particularly bad dice roll. That whole scenario therefore has no role playing as it all ends the same way as you can just keep rerolling until you get it right as your DM is so nice.
The main story will end the same way, but that can be said of many RPs too. The story always has an end goal, but how you get there differs.

Batman Arkham city example again. The mad hatter. He does some funky psychological thing to make you think what you most wanted to think. That, for Batman, was that Alfred had developed a cure, shipped some to him, and was preparing some for the rest of Gotham. Right from the start, that just felt wrong. Not even Mr Freeze had made a cure, yet Alfred somehow had? I went to investigate, and got into the whole Mad Hatter level. I could have roleplayed Batman to be smarter. He may not have gone there, it would have been perfectly feasible within his character. He may have realised it was likely a trap, and let it go. When out in the City of Arkham city, you RP Batman. There are political prisoners being bashed you can save, or that you can just leave to keep getting bashed as there are more important matters at that time.

Even though in Mass Effect 2 you have to go to the Collector ship, having the decision to destroy it or keep it is a big choice. And, you decide how all the loyalty missions end. Also, you can actually make your own Shepard character arc in Mass Effect. If you are being too nice and get screwed over one time too many, that becomes a turning point for your Shepard to stop taking crap and being more of a Malcolm Reynolds type character via the Renegade options. That character development was all you and it wasn't scripted by the game. Same thing goes for the love interests as well, there will be that moment where you feel a certain character and Shepard just click and you decide that romance. You decide how Shepard interacts with all the NPCs as well. You shape Shepard into who he/she is and not the script. In Batman AC, you are Batman, there's no shaping of the character to be done for you. There is even a point in Batman AC where there's a pretty big decision to be made, but you have no choice in the matter. Hell, Batman himself doesn't even get to make the choice.

A binary choice at the end that any Shepard could pick either one for any number of reasons. It is similar to saying that the final choice in Deus Ex HR was a big choice, as there were four of them you could choose that had an effect on the whole world.
Throughout the loyalty missions there is sometimes some RP to be had, but often there is purely a binary choice that has no effect thus far. Now, come to ME3 and view the series as a whole, it will have some decent RP in it most likely.
Also, I don't exactly agree with the whole dialogue thing being a part of Role Play in the Mass Effect series. Quite often it is like saying you RP all those character's who say something in random mumbo jumbo, but the NPCs know what they are saying. You are RPing them as you make up what they say, and their tone. Mostly the same in the Mass Effect Franchise, though of course there are exceptions.

Pure RPGs will not have player skill. Hybrid RPGs may have some. How far that hybrid goes along the 'RPG with X elements, RPG-X Hyrbrid or X with RPG elements' bar will depend on how well it sticks to not only that RPG element, but also to the others.

I don't understand your obsession with the term pure RPGs. Everything changes as time goes on. To only call a RPG that is exactly what the very 1st RPG was a pure RPG is dumb. Everything evolves over time, football is a much different game than how it started out, the point is to keep the core components. And, that's like saying every Metal Gear Solid after the 1st game is not pure MGS but hybrid MGS. The 1st MGS was limited by the hardware at the time, and now MGS controls like a full-on 3rd-person shooter. MGS4 is not hybrid MGS, it's just plain MGS. The core of a RPG is the role-playing, emphasis on role-playing is all a RPG needs to be a RPG. A 1st-person shooter just needs a 1st-person perspective and an emphasis on shooting, it doesn't matter if it's exactly like the very 1st FPS.

Pure RPGs dictates the Pure RPG formula. The whole insistence that Pure RPGs do not exist thereby dictates that RPGs themselves do not exist. Only RPG elements that are added into other games, all of which are now allowed to be called RPGs based off some arbitrary definition that many individuals choose differently from each other.

Anyways, work now [Gotta stop reading forum news so much...], will get back later.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Why can't a role-playing simply just have to focus on role-playing and nothing else?

I'll get to the rest of the stuff later, but a response to this:
Because that tells us NOTHING about the game, and the whole point of having genres is to tell us something about each game.

As I said, you've never heard of CoD before, I tell you its an RPG. What do you expect? Most people will expect a top down tactical experience with stats, levels, progression and a good story. You, apparently, would expect nothing except dialogue choices ala Mass Effect.

If there is no point to a genre, why even have it exist?. There is no point to the RPG genre under your definition, and therefore no reason for it to exist.

If someone gave me a game I knew nothing about and said it was a RPG, I'd have no idea how it would play. The following is from my initial post:

The following are games that are universally considered RPGs by professional gaming journalism: Final Fantasy XIII, Skyrim, Demon's/Dark Souls, World of Warcraft, Star Ocean, Resonance of Fate, Disgaea, Deus Ex, Fallout, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Alpha Protocol, Valkyria Chronicles, and many more. Pretty much all of those games listed have gameplay that are nothing like each other. Demon's/Dark Souls is as different from Mass Effect as Bayonetta is from Call of Duty. Basically, if I were to hand you a game you knew nothing about (brand new intellectual property) and tell you it was a RPG and nothing else, you'd have no idea how the game would actually play; you wouldn't know if it had turn-based combat, 1st/3rd-person shooting, hack and slash combat, etc. The only thing that would be pretty much guaranteed to be present is someway to level up your character(s) by increasing stats and/or skills and abilities.

Therefore, the RPG genre is the most nondescript genre in video games. At least if every RPG focused on role-playing, every RPG would then have a common major element.

'Shooters must involve shooting' of course, like RPGs must involve role playing, but shooters must involve shooting - in Starcraft 2 my marines shoot. Does that make it a third person shooter?
Hell, I can even force sniper shots from my ghost, so I have control over my shots when I turn on cease fire.
Jagged Alliance contains a lot of shooting - is it a shooter?
In Skyrim I shoot magic and bows - is it an FPS?

Simply 'it must involve shooting' tells us very little about the game itself. Vague comments like this help none at all.

For a game to be a shooter, you have to controlling the character and actually aiming and shooting yourself. There really aren't any shooters that don't have those characteristics. That's why a game like Valkyria Chronicles isn't a shooter. Also, the game has to focus on shooting as well. If Skyrim only had bow and arrow shooting, then it would be a shooter.

I would equate it to a DM giving some divine intervention to a player that would otherwise die, or letting them re-roll a particularly bad dice roll. That whole scenario therefore has no role playing as it all ends the same way as you can just keep rerolling until you get it right as your DM is so nice.
The main story will end the same way, but that can be said of many RPs too. The story always has an end goal, but how you get there differs.

That's an awfully nice DM then. DMs are supposed to do things that go unnoticed by the players to help them out or even make things tougher. If the DM realizes he made the dungeon too tough, then he'll take out a monster here and there.

Isn't the journey almost always more important than the story? Look at Lord of the Rings, the story is real simple. The only times the story really shines is when it's really complex like say the movie The Prestige. And, you can only do stories like that in a completely scripted manner anyways.

Batman Arkham city example again. The mad hatter. He does some funky psychological thing to make you think what you most wanted to think. That, for Batman, was that Alfred had developed a cure, shipped some to him, and was preparing some for the rest of Gotham. Right from the start, that just felt wrong. Not even Mr Freeze had made a cure, yet Alfred somehow had? I went to investigate, and got into the whole Mad Hatter level. I could have roleplayed Batman to be smarter. He may not have gone there, it would have been perfectly feasible within his character. He may have realised it was likely a trap, and let it go. When out in the City of Arkham city, you RP Batman. There are political prisoners being bashed you can save, or that you can just leave to keep getting bashed as there are more important matters at that time.

Those are really just choices on whether you wanna do the sidequest or not. That's the same as choosing to do or not do the loyalty missions in Mass Effect 2, those aren't real choices. Batman can't actually decide the fate anyone in the game, that political prisoner you chose not to save will be ready to be saved next time you glide by. Now, if you could choose to not save the political prisoner because you don't agree with his politics and aid in the beating, then that would be something.

A binary choice at the end that any Shepard could pick either one for any number of reasons. It is similar to saying that the final choice in Deus Ex HR was a big choice, as there were four of them you could choose that had an effect on the whole world.
Throughout the loyalty missions there is sometimes some RP to be had, but often there is purely a binary choice that has no effect thus far. Now, come to ME3 and view the series as a whole, it will have some decent RP in it most likely.
Also, I don't exactly agree with the whole dialogue thing being a part of Role Play in the Mass Effect series. Quite often it is like saying you RP all those character's who say something in random mumbo jumbo, but the NPCs know what they are saying. You are RPing them as you make up what they say, and their tone. Mostly the same in the Mass Effect Franchise, though of course there are exceptions.

Deus Ex HR's final choice would've been a lot bigger if the game wasn't a prequel, but you already now how the future is going to play out so it made the choice seem rather unimportant.

I pretty sure you could go into the meeting with the Asari chick at Omega being respective of her power there or more aggressive (hey I'm a Spectre, *****). Of course, the NPC has scripted response based on how you go about that meeting, but that's the limitation of video games.

Pure RPGs dictates the Pure RPG formula. The whole insistence that Pure RPGs do not exist thereby dictates that RPGs themselves do not exist. Only RPG elements that are added into other games, all of which are now allowed to be called RPGs based off some arbitrary definition that many individuals choose differently from each other.

I'm not saying that pure RPGs don't exist, but you act like a pure RPG has to have like 100 exact elements to be considered a pure RPG. Half-life, Call of Duty, and Vanquish are very different shooters but I would call them all pure shooters, I wouldn't call any of them hybrid shooters. You gotta have the same core components to a pure whatever game.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

An RPG is defined by agency and nothing more. The greater the player's perceived agency of character or narrative, the more likely a game is to be recognized as an RPG. Modern Warfare offers no agency nor even a perception that it might exists; by contrast Skyrim offers some degree of agency in character construction and the way their character approaches problems. As such, the former is generally not regarded as an RPG while the latter is.

The primary confusion I personally see is that people attach particular meaning to a mechanical expression of agency and use that as a definition of RPG. An inventory screen is one such example commonly cited in a great many games but such a system is just one way to afford agency over a character; there are, it turns out, others.

 

[Joccaren]

If someone gave me a game I knew nothing about and said it was a RPG, I'd have no idea how it would play. The following is from my initial post:

The following are games that are universally considered RPGs by professional gaming journalism: Final Fantasy XIII, Skyrim, Demon's/Dark Souls, World of Warcraft, Star Ocean, Resonance of Fate, Disgaea, Deus Ex, Fallout, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Alpha Protocol, Valkyria Chronicles, and many more. Pretty much all of those games listed have gameplay that are nothing like each other. Demon's/Dark Souls is as different from Mass Effect as Bayonetta is from Call of Duty. Basically, if I were to hand you a game you knew nothing about (brand new intellectual property) and tell you it was a RPG and nothing else, you'd have no idea how the game would actually play; you wouldn't know if it had turn-based combat, 1st/3rd-person shooting, hack and slash combat, etc. The only thing that would be pretty much guaranteed to be present is someway to level up your character(s) by increasing stats and/or skills and abilities.

Therefore, the RPG genre is the most nondescript genre in video games. At least if every RPG focused on role-playing, every RPG would then have a common major element.

When someone told me a game was an RPG, I would instantly think of RPG elements, things that, you know, kinda share their name with RPGs as they are omnipresent in them. Now, of course RPGs of different descriptions exist. Action RPGs - focus more on combat than the anything else - JRPGs - more focus on turn based combat and inventory up until some of the more recent titles, with less on you controlling every decision the player makes - Hardcore RPGs - focuses on heavy RPG elements in all sections: Inventory, levelling, combat, agency, ect. - story RPGs - where the story and agency come in reasonable balance, with RPG mechanics - linear RPGs - The western equivalent of JRPGs, though to varying degrees of linearity - and then the Hybrid RPGs - games like Mass Effect 2 that, whilst they have some RPG elements, also have strong elements from other genres, such as shooting.
Why so many categories? For the same reason the whole genre system exists in the first place: Information.
What is the point of the RPG genre if it quite honestly tells us nothing about the game?
'You will have more agency than a usual game'. I have more agency in GTA than your average game these days. It is not an RPG.
The label RPG MUST carry certain values with it. Mechanics are an important part of this. Whilst all the RPG types listed above will have different individual attributes, there are certain factors that will stay omnipresent, except in the hybrids (To which I would be told 'Shooter with RPG elements/RPG with shooter elements' rather than just 'RPG'). The thing that changes is how much focus is put on each element. In JRPGs and Linear RPGs, your Agency is taken back a lot, but the other RPG elements are still strong. Play the earlier final fantasy games and tell me they don't have strong levels of other RPG elements. Hardcore RPGs to Action RPGs though will all have the strong inventory system, levelling system, stat based combat - RPG elements - in them. The difference is often which it focuses on.
Hybrid RPGs offer the exception. They keep some RPG elements - usually player Agency and interactivity with the world - and apply different genre's mechanics to them. Dependent on where the focus lies - the RPG elements or the other game elements - will depend on where it falls on that scale I mentioned earlier.

For a game to be a shooter, you have to controlling the character and actually aiming and shooting yourself. There really aren't any shooters that don't have those characteristics. That's why a game like Valkyria Chronicles isn't a shooter. Also, the game has to focus on shooting as well. If Skyrim only had bow and arrow shooting, then it would be a shooter.

So now we see, it is more than just 'It must involve shooting' for it to be a shooter, similar to how it is more than 'it must involve role playing' for it to be an RPG.

That's an awfully nice DM then. DMs are supposed to do things that go unnoticed by the players to help them out or even make things tougher. If the DM realizes he made the dungeon too tough, then he'll take out a monster here and there.

Not necessarily. You need to roll a 1 to fail a test on a lethal trap that you are dodging. The only way you can fail and die is if you roll a one. It is pretty much certain that you will roll anything but a one. You roll a one. Is the DM awfully nice for going 'That was a seriously crap roll, give it another shot'?
Then there's also the DM that just wants to get your character through their story, rather than having to deal with a different character coming in. Likely as they have something planned for your character specifically later on, which can no longer happen. That's more of a story focused DM than a awfully nice DM. They may have even written it in for the story to kill you, but not there or then. Dependent on the version of D&D you play, the DMs story can be more important than you making a difference to it.

Isn't the journey almost always more important than the story? Look at Lord of the Rings, the story is real simple. The only times the story really shines is when it's really complex like say the movie The Prestige. And, you can only do stories like that in a completely scripted manner anyways.

Hehe, Lord of the Rings. That just reminds me of a spoof I saw where after they all meet up they fly the giant eagles to Mordor, and Frodo drops the ring into the volcano from the back of one of the Eagles whilst the other characters grab Sauron's attention by saying his mother had cataracts.
And yes, often the journey is more important than the story. Look at Lord of the Rings though. Your own example of the journey being more important than the story. The journey is 100% linear with no roleplaying (By your definition anyway), so what is the point of bringing it up?
What I find, and that you may be neglecting, is that the journey is actually a part of the story. The basic plot and outline of the story, the blurb, back cover preview, synopsis - ect - is less important than the story when it takes place. The journey, if you will.

Those are really just choices on whether you wanna do the sidequest or not. That's the same as choosing to do or not do the loyalty missions in Mass Effect 2, those aren't real choices.

Actually, they are dependent on how you do the choices. If you go down the 'I don't want to do this sidequest, so I wont do it' route, yes, it isn't a good choice. If you exclude player knowledge and go by a character based decision, it is a real choice. First time I player AC, I had no idea what the Mad Hatter quest was - or even that there was one. I merely got a radio broadcast about a cure drop, and my character became hopeful and suspicious at the same time. He ended up deciding to investigate, as if it was dangerous might as well deal with it now, whilst if it was true then it would provide a great advantage as now you no longer needed to get the cure from Joker. He then found out that the Mad Hatter had tricked him, and did the sidequest. That wasn't a 'Oooh, another sidequest' sort of thing. That was a, from my character's point of view 'I'm dying, nearly dead, and running out of time. Apparently Harley has already got the cure to Joker, so if its gone its already gone, whereas this presents an opportunity to survive and get cured even if it is gone. If it is a trap, then I am living on borrowed time anyway and should be able to handle it. It is worth the risk to investigate it if it may save my own, and much of Gotham's citizen's, life/ves'.
Same sort of thing in ME2. If you decide to not do Jack's loyalty quest as your character doesn't like her, not because you can't be bothered, then that is a legitimate decision and a part of role playing. If you make your decisions based off how it will benefit you in the game, not on how your character would make that decision, you aren't roleplaying.

Batman can't actually decide the fate anyone in the game, that political prisoner you chose not to save will be ready to be saved next time you glide by.

Come now, don't pretend its any different in Mass Effect 1 or 2 (In two there is one mission that is timed and has an effect if you don't do it there and then - the end one - but otherwise its all the same). If you don't recruit your squad fast, and spend more time joyriding and doing side missions, the collectors will not attack Horizon until you are ready. If you don't save Feros early, or Liara on Therum early, they'll be in the exact same state when you get there later. Hell, a lot of the time you can just abandon the mission and come back to it later from memory, so it is pretty much the same thing.

Now, if you could choose to not save the political prisoner because you don't agree with his politics and aid in the beating, then that would be something.

That, however, would never happen as it is not in Batman's character. He would save the political prisoner (More often a political prisoner because they helped build Arkham city than because they had different politics to Strange), and question him or inform him to change his policy rather than helping beat him up. Its Batman's character. Saying something like that is like saying Shepard should be allowed to start off as a simple colonist rather than someone in the military. Its part of his character that he's in the military. it is a semi pre-defined character. With Shepard you get a fair bit more freedom, but some things are still restricted as Shepard wouldn't do that, and to help the story progress further.

Deus Ex HR's final choice would've been a lot bigger if the game wasn't a prequel, but you already now how the future is going to play out so it made the choice seem rather unimportant.

That among the lack of buildup to the choice. The story had a unique advantage of being able to show both the positive and negative side of Augmentation. It focused on the negative. Based off what you saw throughout the game's main story, there isn't a lot of reason to pick a Pro-Augmentation option. Some sidequests showed the good side of Augmentation, but the main story itself focused almost exclusively on the bad. It can be used to control people, to hack places, to build an army to conquer the world, to destroy the world, any number of bad things are bought up. Most of the time, the only positive thing you'll hear about it will be a random NPC talking about that amazing new construct that was only possible thanks to augmentation. Its almost trying to force you to pick anti augmentation. I will agree that some of this likely still comes down to the original games and the decision that was made for them, but showing some of the positive effects of Augmentation more prominently would have been possible without ruining the continuity of it all.

I pretty sure you could go into the meeting with the Asari chick at Omega being respective of her power there or more aggressive (hey I'm a Spectre, *****). Of course, the NPC has scripted response based on how you go about that meeting, but that's the limitation of video games.

Thing is, limitation of video games is limited responses, not that all responses must be the same. It is the limit of the ME2 story that means that no matter what she will help you. It would be quite easy to make her decide to make you a wanted man on Omega if you were too rude to her - the story would be broken because of such though, and thus it would never be implemented.
The of what to say, like so many in the Mass Effect Franchise, has no effect on what ends up happening. Not due to a technical error, but due to the story being Pseudo Linear. At certain points you will be allowed to change things. At most, you will not.

I'm not saying that pure RPGs don't exist, but you act like a pure RPG has to have like 100 exact elements to be considered a pure RPG. Half-life, Call of Duty, and Vanquish are very different shooters but I would call them all pure shooters, I wouldn't call any of them hybrid shooters. You gotta have the same core components to a pure whatever game.

Learn the definition of pure.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pure
"free from anything of a different, inferior, or contaminating kind; free from extraneous matter"
RPG elements free from the elements of other games. 100% exact RPG elements, and it is a pure RPG.
A pure shooter is a game that has shooter elements and nothing else. I'm not going to bother defining shooter elements, as they should be obvious.
There are, of course, universal elements. A story - or context - of some kind will be in pretty much every game, and is one of the building blocks of modern games. These don't effect how 'pure' a game is, neither does their complexity, as it is a universal element. It would be like saying Pure gold is not pure as it has different isotopes in it.
When you get to games like Mass Effect, they are not pure shooters as they contain RPG elements. Multiplayer shooters these days are no longer pure shooters due to the intensive level up and unlock bonuses systems.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Pretty much every JRPG is not a RPG because those games have no role-playing in them.

No.

I'm sorry, but I'm fucking sick of everyone assuming JRPGs are all linear corridors with no customisation involved, when it simply isn't fucking true. Just because some Final Fantasy games have been incredibly linear, that doesn't mean you to to write off the whole genre as No True Scotsman.

Final Fantasy 7 allowed to you use the Materia system to shape the characters however you wanted. You could make Cloud a Summoner, Barrett a White Mage, Tifa a Black Mage, etc. That's part of the definition of role-playing.

In fact, while we're talking about FF: Final Fantasy created the fucking Jobs system, widely regarded as one of the most important gaming mechanics in allowing players to customise their characters to whatever playstyle they wanted. How can a genre which created one of the key mechanics of role-playing not be called a roleplaying genre? Even if you look outside of Final Fantasy, you still have games like:

Shin Megami Tensei- a series that refutes pretty misconceptions and assumption about the genre that you have.

Chrono Trigger- a game that included far more non-linearity and choice than any Mass Effect game, and stands to this day as one of the greatest examples of an RPG story reacting to your choices.

Legend Of Mana- a game where you build your character from scratch, then wander out into a world where you can take quests in different orders, and even make moral choices about which characters to side with. Oh my, kind of sounds like an early version of Skyrim...

Dark Souls- an RPG made in Japan that's so good, the WRPG fanboys are trying to come up with excuses as to why it's not a JRPG at all, and just a plain old RPG. Despite, y'know, being made in Japan.

OP: You've taken one example of a WRPG, Mass Effect, and try to act as if the whole of the RPG genre can be held to this standard. Likewise, you try and claim that all JRPGs are linear grindfests, when in actuality you're holding them to the completely different standard of a rather poor recent FF release. That is, in fact, the definition of a double standard. If you're going to judge JRPGs for their roleplaying, then judge them by the best of what the genre has to offer (as you do with Western RPGs) or don't fucking bother at all. Because right now, you've proven yourself highly ignorant of the history of the JRPG genre, and just what JRPGs offer to the players in terms of choice and customisation.

I did not say ALL JRPGs should not be considered RPGs, I said almost all. I'm not a JRPG aficionado by any stretch. I didn't play many JRPGs before the PS2 because I absolutely HATE random battles, I tried so very hard to play FFVI on the SNES, but I just gave up because of a fucking battle every 3 steps. Plus, random battles make the world seem incredibly lifeless as there is no life on the map.

These are the JRPGs I have played: FFVI (a good portion of it), FFX, FFXII, all of Xenosaga, Eternal Sonata, Resonance of Fate, Valkyria Chronicles, and Dark Souls (playing it now, just finished Anor Londo last night). I've had Neir for awhile, bought it for $15 but I haven't played it yet. All those games have no role-playing in them. I wasn't judging them, I was just classifying them as not being RPGs. I'm absolutely loving Dark Souls but it's basically DnD without the role-playing, it's a straight-up dungeon crawler; it's like the video game equivalent of playing through a massive DnD dungeon, that's all it focuses on and it excels at that.

I usually have a problem with JRPG's combat systems as they usually WERE turn-based with little to no strategy, DnD's battle system is a lot more strategic than almost all JRPGs (not counting the tactic/strategy games like FF Tactics, Disgaea, etc. as most turn-based JRPGs weren't those type of games). A turned-based system should be strategic because if it's not, then it could and should be done in real-time. For example, FFX's battle system was so simple and that made it boring because it was turn-based. Then, FFXII used FFX's battle system but let you set gambits so you didn't have to go through menus to do all the obvious commands. My character has 25% health so I'll heal them or everyone's doing fine, I'll attack the enemy. FFXII just let you program what you would do in most situations, that shows you how little strategy was in the FFX battle system. Xenosaga II's battle system is an example of how turn-based battle systems should be. Positioning should be important in a turn-based system; however, most JRPGs are the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other side just attacking back and forth.

What JRPGs do better than WRPGs is create unique worlds, races, characters, etc. They still have a lot of cliches though, but at least 90% of them aren't based in the standard DnD/Tolkien world that I'm so completely tired of like most WRPGs. And, JRPGs have the advantage of being completely scripted so the story and characters have the POTENTIAL to be better than a WRPG. That's what I judge JRPGs on, on what they are trying to accomplish, it's the same way judge anything. You have no say over your character's personality or where the story goes in JRPGs, the characters' dialog and the story are completely pre-scripted. Most JRPGs are basically adventure games with a combat system, that is not me putting down them, it's just me describing what they are. The demo of Catherine had more role-playing than most JRPGs.

I have plenty of hate to go around on both JRPGs and WRPGs as the majority of both of them have some serious flaws and cliches.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

This thread is full of so much fail in the OP I want to smash my fist threw my laptop, reach through the internet slap them and then direct them to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game] page. You went through all that for a definition and came up with the wrong wiki page(lol wiki for research) what kinda research is that?

Here's the 1st paragraph from that Wiki page (others have posted it):
Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) are a video game genre with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.

Notice the "player character development" part. That's character development that the player has a hand in crafting, which is just not simple leveling up as that is called character advancement, which is much different than character development.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

This thread is full of so much fail in the OP I want to smash my fist threw my laptop, reach through the internet slap them and then direct them to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game] page. You went through all that for a definition and came up with the wrong wiki page(lol wiki for research) what kinda research is that?

Here's the 1st paragraph from that Wiki page (others have posted it):
Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) are a video game genre with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.

Notice the "player character development" part. That's character development that the player has a hand in crafting, which is just not simple leveling up as that is called character advancement, which is much different than character development.

Ok so you are saying that most JRPGs are actually the true successors and WRPGs are just action games where you make your own avatar. Arbitrary moral choices does not make a video game RPG neither does make your own avatar. Character development and stories in WRPGs aside from some of the old school CRPGs tends to be very very poor and black and white.