Even though it contains some degree of flamebait, I believe this essay on role-playing games follows on from where TOGSolid started. [http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/]TOGSolid said:
What is an rpg?
- Thread starter Tarkand
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is true, but what about JRPGs? They usual have a very linear leveling system, a linear story with no real decisions to make, and no character creation.Nevyrmoore said:
This is why it's so hard to define an RPG. You have western RPG's where you can create a character, decide what and how many quests to take. Sometimes you can even effect the outcome. JRPGs don't fit in with that description but are still called RPGs.
The only common factor across all RPGs is a leveling system, linear or not. So, to me, the only factor to look at is how prominent the system it. If it's just a minor element like in BioSHock then you have genre "x" with RPG elements. If its more prominent then other features, then you have an RPG with "x" elements.
The thing is, we are talking about a video game genre, not P&P games, and that "shit like Final Fantasy" was being called an RPG before any of those other games existed.TOGSolid said:
As stated in the essay I linked to a couple of posts ago, they're called RPGs because of the first western attempts at a CRPG based on P&P RPGs. The east saw those dungeon crawlers, didn't realise that the heart of an RPG was to shape a storyline and to create your own character with their own feelings, quirks, morals, etc., and went on to focus on the battle systems.Pyode said:
Which is why I don't really consider JRPGs to be actual RPGs. At least not in the sense of how I'm defining an RPG. When I play a JRPG, I never feel that what I do affects the storyline in some way. That at the end of the day, I'm playing a novel, and no matter how I want to shape the world around me, I'm blocked off from doing so.
This article may be the greatest thing I have ever read. Thank you so much for that link.Nevyrmoore said:
SO MUCH TRUTH.
Funnily enough, that quote also answers this guy:
Since the first gamers picked up their dice and told their DM "Fuck that, I kill Gandalf, he's got to have some good loot on him." (if you get this reference, you win twenty internets)Heart of Darkness said:
That article that got linked is basically mandatory reading for this thread. It completely ends the debate. I don't see how it's flamebait save for the fact that it'll piss off the weeaboos, but that's never a bad thing.
Agreed, but we've at least got to give at least some credit to the games that at least make the attempt at giving the player true RPG freedom.Nevyrmoore said:
*continues humping Deus Ex's leg*
Yah, RPG... "Role Playing", so if I really get into my character and 'become' the character, thats Role Playing, right? So an RPG is a game where you "play" (as in screenplay?) your character. *cough* Enough of this!
Yes, yes it is...happysock said:
That was an utterly idiotic post.TOGSolid said:
You called me out on not backing up my argument, then declared I was wrong without backing up your own argument.
Applause for you.
Your tone was also uncalled for and made you look like an aggressive dick.
In Zelda : A link to the Past, you begin the game PLAYING THE ROLE of Link, who begins the game weak and inexperienced in a large, open world.
As you progress through the game, you acquire different loot and abilities, as well as levelling up your character and making him stronger and more capable in combat. Basically, stat building.
As Link becomes statistically stronger, he develops as a character and we see the world through his eyes.
Now climb down off your high horse and try to engage on a civil level this time.
Congratulations, you can identify sarcastic parody.miracleofsound said:
Did you even bother reading the rest of this thread or are you just throwing shit out there for laughs? I'm not going to bother typing out a unique response to this because I already covered it.
Also Nevyrmoore linked an article that I mostly agree with that counters everything you said in a much more verbose fashion.TOGSolid said:
Nevyrmoore said:
You're a confrontational one, aren't you?TOGSolid said:
Obviously the real 'true' RPG experience began with Dungeons and Dragons style pen and paper play, and the abiltiy to shape your character. Hell, I was a dungeon master when I was little.
But genres evolve and change. They expand to include different versions of the core experience.
Zelda is more often than not called an Action-RPG, and when I played it back in the early nineties it was referred to in every media form as simply an RPG, as it was the closest thing gaming has to an RPG (except the point and click adventures, but they didn't appear on consoles).
Arguing whether or not it is an old school 'character build' RPG is pointless, it clearly is not My point is that the meaning of 'RPG' has changed as the genre has evolved.
Hence JRPGs and shooty RPGs like F3.
First, let me welcome you to The Escapist OP. You deserve the utmost regards for developing such a well thought out criteria.
Overall I agree with your assessment. I think that over time RPGs have changed and the moniker "RPG" has become something of a misnomer. RPGs at this point should probably get a new name, but the term RPG has become so embedded in gaming vocabulary that that's unlikely to happen.
Overall I agree with your assessment. I think that over time RPGs have changed and the moniker "RPG" has become something of a misnomer. RPGs at this point should probably get a new name, but the term RPG has become so embedded in gaming vocabulary that that's unlikely to happen.
I guess all people technically have a different definition of what an RPG is.
For me, and RPG is when you play the part of a character that you can relate to who grows, and matures over the course of the game. The character cannot remain the same over the course of the story.
Master Chief is Master Chief from Halo 1-3, so Halo is not an RPG.
Cloud from the start of Final Fantasy VII is a mercinary who will do work for the highest bidder, but over his travels he becomes a hero who rises above who he was before, Final Fantasy VII is an RPG.
In Assassin's Creed, Desmond is playing the role of Altier. Okay, that is cheating. But Altier begins the story as an arrogant top leveled assassin, but as he learns more about the creed and his targets, his entire point of view on his world changes. Assassin's Creed is an RPG.
Samus Aran begins the game as a badass bounty hunter and ends the game as an even more badass bounty hunter. Metroid is not an RPG.
Althouth RPG is a role playing game, for me the character cannot be static.
For me, and RPG is when you play the part of a character that you can relate to who grows, and matures over the course of the game. The character cannot remain the same over the course of the story.
Master Chief is Master Chief from Halo 1-3, so Halo is not an RPG.
Cloud from the start of Final Fantasy VII is a mercinary who will do work for the highest bidder, but over his travels he becomes a hero who rises above who he was before, Final Fantasy VII is an RPG.
In Assassin's Creed, Desmond is playing the role of Altier. Okay, that is cheating. But Altier begins the story as an arrogant top leveled assassin, but as he learns more about the creed and his targets, his entire point of view on his world changes. Assassin's Creed is an RPG.
Samus Aran begins the game as a badass bounty hunter and ends the game as an even more badass bounty hunter. Metroid is not an RPG.
Althouth RPG is a role playing game, for me the character cannot be static.
RPG's are games with stats and skills and feats and dialogue menus and indefinite storylines.
If you look at all games, as you said, they are all role playing games in the sense that we (the player) fill a role within that game's universe. As such, I'd suggest that we have to have some element in also defining that character.
Look at Mass Effect, KotOR, DA: Origins, the TES series, the Fallout series. The character is ours. In Assassin's Creed you are Altair. In Oblivion I'm whoever the hell I want to be; I'm Colin the flower-picker if I so choose.
Like I said, it needs stats/skills/feats/perks/buffs. That's why Zelda is not an RPG.
If you look at all games, as you said, they are all role playing games in the sense that we (the player) fill a role within that game's universe. As such, I'd suggest that we have to have some element in also defining that character.
Look at Mass Effect, KotOR, DA: Origins, the TES series, the Fallout series. The character is ours. In Assassin's Creed you are Altair. In Oblivion I'm whoever the hell I want to be; I'm Colin the flower-picker if I so choose.
Like I said, it needs stats/skills/feats/perks/buffs. That's why Zelda is not an RPG.
Ok, I was going to leave this be and go to sleep, perhaps address it in the morning, but I literally just got pulled back to the keyboard. Here goes:
A good definition should include criteria by which we can measure whether a certain object (in this case, a video game) fits within a certain category. In gaming, this problem is made difficult by the merging between categories and the vast variety of titles. Nonetheless, I've basically boiled my personal definition down to this:
The first criteria that differentiates an RPG from other genres is the presence of a coherent storyline that begins and terminates (whether at the game or in a sequel). Thus, multiplayer only shooters and sports games are immediately sieved out (they may have a 'setting' but are not primarily focused on telling a good tale). Some RPGs relegate storylines to second place behind gameplay (see Diablo-style games and MMORPGs), but they all have it.
The second criteria is a focus on identifying the player with a primary controlled character. Whether the character is created from scratch by the player (D&D, Bethesda etc), chosen from a variety of models (Jade Empire, Borderlands, Diablo), or handed over pre-conceived and modeled (the Witcher, many JRPGs), the player is always asked to 'be' that character in a certain sense. This is true even when the game is party based (NWN2, DA:O, JRPGs). This filters out RTSs (which put you in the role of a commander, not an in-game unit. You are yourself, not a creation). So far so easy.
The third and most important criteria is that an RPG must have a sense of progression for the main character. This is what sets apart RPGs from two closely related genres: story-based shooters and adventure games. Progression can usually be found in two forms: of skills (nearly universal) and of character (not always present). RPGs may not need much freedom in terms of storyline, but it must give the player some choice when it comes to character progression (it is impossible to have a completely non-linear storyline in any game, at best a degree of storyline branching can be included but this never comes close to a true make-you-own-story model). This freedom of choice serves to reinforce the bond between the player and the character, leading to greater emotional investment and 'role-playing'. Shooters traditionally have neither skill or character progression, although more and more have a bit of the former and a touch of the latter. Critically, however, progression in both these areas in shooters is almost always tightly-scripted and pre-determined. In adventure games, skill progression is usually relegated to the granting of new abilities for the solving of puzzles and is heavily predetermined and all character progression is pre-scripted into the plot. Thus, they cannot be RPGs.
This brings us to the issue of combat. A possible fourth criteria might be the presence of a system by which skills, directly or indirectly, progress a plot. Note hear that when I say skills I'm trying to refrain from using a restrictive sense of the word. In Mass Effect, skill means abilities and crosshair accuracy, in Diablo it meant new spells and abilities. In Pokemon (which entirely fits my definition of an RPG), learning new skills is equivalent to catching new Pokemon and using their abilities in battle. I don't want to make this criteria too rigid because a skill-testing system can come in many forms. Importantly, however, combat (or whatever system is used) shouldn't only be for the sake of progressing the plot but equally for the sake of testing and using new skills. This again separates RPGs from shooters and adventure games. I say this because skills should be earned with the purpose of frequent usage and enjoyment in mind, not utility for getting through the game. If this sounds controversial, it's because it is, you might disagree.
Anyhow, that wraps up my definition. Have fun kids, I'm hitting the hay.
A good definition should include criteria by which we can measure whether a certain object (in this case, a video game) fits within a certain category. In gaming, this problem is made difficult by the merging between categories and the vast variety of titles. Nonetheless, I've basically boiled my personal definition down to this:
The first criteria that differentiates an RPG from other genres is the presence of a coherent storyline that begins and terminates (whether at the game or in a sequel). Thus, multiplayer only shooters and sports games are immediately sieved out (they may have a 'setting' but are not primarily focused on telling a good tale). Some RPGs relegate storylines to second place behind gameplay (see Diablo-style games and MMORPGs), but they all have it.
The second criteria is a focus on identifying the player with a primary controlled character. Whether the character is created from scratch by the player (D&D, Bethesda etc), chosen from a variety of models (Jade Empire, Borderlands, Diablo), or handed over pre-conceived and modeled (the Witcher, many JRPGs), the player is always asked to 'be' that character in a certain sense. This is true even when the game is party based (NWN2, DA:O, JRPGs). This filters out RTSs (which put you in the role of a commander, not an in-game unit. You are yourself, not a creation). So far so easy.
The third and most important criteria is that an RPG must have a sense of progression for the main character. This is what sets apart RPGs from two closely related genres: story-based shooters and adventure games. Progression can usually be found in two forms: of skills (nearly universal) and of character (not always present). RPGs may not need much freedom in terms of storyline, but it must give the player some choice when it comes to character progression (it is impossible to have a completely non-linear storyline in any game, at best a degree of storyline branching can be included but this never comes close to a true make-you-own-story model). This freedom of choice serves to reinforce the bond between the player and the character, leading to greater emotional investment and 'role-playing'. Shooters traditionally have neither skill or character progression, although more and more have a bit of the former and a touch of the latter. Critically, however, progression in both these areas in shooters is almost always tightly-scripted and pre-determined. In adventure games, skill progression is usually relegated to the granting of new abilities for the solving of puzzles and is heavily predetermined and all character progression is pre-scripted into the plot. Thus, they cannot be RPGs.
This brings us to the issue of combat. A possible fourth criteria might be the presence of a system by which skills, directly or indirectly, progress a plot. Note hear that when I say skills I'm trying to refrain from using a restrictive sense of the word. In Mass Effect, skill means abilities and crosshair accuracy, in Diablo it meant new spells and abilities. In Pokemon (which entirely fits my definition of an RPG), learning new skills is equivalent to catching new Pokemon and using their abilities in battle. I don't want to make this criteria too rigid because a skill-testing system can come in many forms. Importantly, however, combat (or whatever system is used) shouldn't only be for the sake of progressing the plot but equally for the sake of testing and using new skills. This again separates RPGs from shooters and adventure games. I say this because skills should be earned with the purpose of frequent usage and enjoyment in mind, not utility for getting through the game. If this sounds controversial, it's because it is, you might disagree.
Anyhow, that wraps up my definition. Have fun kids, I'm hitting the hay.