What is a RPG?

[Wolf Kanno]

After reading this amusing Preview (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/26643/Analysis_The_Conundrum_of_Final_Fantasy_XIII.php) about FFXIII (WARNING THERE ARE A FEW SPOILERS!!!) as well as my own personal discussions on the nature of linear game design, I've come to whimsical conclusion we at EoFF should seriously sit back and ask ourselves what actually constitutes an RPG? What are the defining guidelines that keeps a game in the RPG genre and doesn't just make it an interactive movie with a menu based system or in term of action RPGs, doesn't accidentally transform it into an Action Game itself.

I just feel that in the modern age, defining RPGs as simply a game with a focus on storytelling is kinda silly cause most games now feature a heavier emphasis on storytelling. DMC4's greatest criticism was how awful the plot was but if this was fifteen years ago, such a criticism would not even be an issue cause action games were not designed to be about storyline, plots in an action game were just a semi-logical excuse to explain why you are shooting aliens with your six shooter while riding a dinosaur. Obviously things have changed and games like MGS, SotN, and RE have made strong narratives a mainstay for action games so now that RPGs (or at least JRPGs) are losing their old school niche, what is left to define them.

XIII has removed towns and old school shops, and transformed most of the dungeons into simple roads, NPC are almost non-existent and the world and flow of the game is heavily linear and offers zero choice. I feel the question many critics have been asking, is it still an RPG? and why? What defining elements does it possess that makes it separate from other genres? What's to keep people from saying its just a menu based action game? I mean we've reached a point now where other genres have been sampling the RPG pie so much that it is hard to say what actually constitutes an RPG and not just be one of its many splintered offshoots.

So my question is this: What is your definition of an RPG and what do you think a universal definition for it would be? What do you feel it should be?

[Madame Adequate]

JRPGs have never involved much in the way of RP.

I am pretty bothered by the absence of towns though. Most of my favorite locations from FF games have been towns after all, something that's probably true of many other people.

I was more confident about FFXIII until I saw this stuff.

But yeah if you want to play an actual RPG which does involve the RP aspect (i.e. choices & consequences) rather than telling a linear story using RPG-mechanic combat, you need to play western games quite simply.

[Quindiana Jones]

I am pretty bothered by the absence of towns though. Most of my favorite locations from FF games have been towns after all, something that's probably true of many other people.


Dali = one of the best locations ever.

[Mirage]

JRPGs aren't really RPGs, and never have been. It's just a term that most people associate with "rpg-like stat progression". If you want games that actually try to be like an RPG, you need to play western RPGs, and even these only scratch the surface of real roleplaying.

[Laddy]

The only true RPG is Facade.

Download it now.

[Raistlin]

JRPGs aren't really RPGs, and never have been. It's just a term that most people associate with "rpg-like stat progression". If you want games that actually try to be like an RPG, you need to play western RPGs, and even these only scratch the surface of real roleplaying.

Yeah, it's tough to develop a definition of RPG which incorporates JRPGs but somehow manages to exclude Action/Adventure games. The Adventure games just add a little plot and there's less and less which distinguishes them.

Modern JRPGs could just be considered console movies with some gameplay elements. At least, that's what the Final Fantasy series seems to be moving towards anyway (FFXII was an exception).

[Rad Bromance]

I really don't think the term "RPG" should even be used anymore, unless you're talking about a game like Fable or Oblivion I suppose. Games like Final Fantasy VII and Xenogears are no more "Role-Playing Games" than Bayonetta or Resident Evil.

I remember when I first saw Fallout 3 and Mass Effect and they were labeled as "RPG" I thought "What? These aren't at all RPGs!" but now that I think about it those are actually more RPGs than FF games (save XI) are.

[Bolivar]

It's like pronography, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

I mean the boundaries of the genre have been eroding since the mid-late 90's. I'm going to have to play FFXIII for myself before I label it a menu-based action game, but a lot of the new coming out isn't good.

[Mirage]

I really don't think the term "RPG" should even be used anymore, unless you're talking about a game like Fable or Oblivion I suppose. Games like Final Fantasy VII and Xenogears are no more "Role-Playing Games" than Bayonetta or Resident Evil.

I remember when I first saw Fallout 3 and Mass Effect and they were labeled as "RPG" I thought "What? These aren't at all RPGs!" but now that I think about it those are actually more RPGs than FF games (save XI) are.

Why exactly did you think FO3 and ME weren't RPGs?

[Rad Bromance]

I really don't think the term "RPG" should even be used anymore, unless you're talking about a game like Fable or Oblivion I suppose. Games like Final Fantasy VII and Xenogears are no more "Role-Playing Games" than Bayonetta or Resident Evil.

I remember when I first saw Fallout 3 and Mass Effect and they were labeled as "RPG" I thought "What? These aren't at all RPGs!" but now that I think about it those are actually more RPGs than FF games (save XI) are.

Why exactly did you think FO3 and ME weren't RPGs?
Because they're first/third person shooters.

[Mirage]

I never really saw that as conflicting with them being RPGs, I just thought "oh cool, an action RPG where I can play in first person!" I guess I can see how it could clash with some people's perception of genres though :p.

[Raistlin]

FO3 fits quite squarely into the WRPG sub-genre; it's basically an Oblivion-style game with a futuristic setting. I can see Mass Effect blurring the lines a bit more, though.

[Mirage]

well, FO3 and TES4 is more proper-rpg-like than ME because of the sandbox gameplay you get in it. In ME you can't attack friendlies no matter what :p.

[Yeargdribble]

The term RPG is BS to begin with. The broad number of things it has evolved to cover are far from the table-top style games it originated from. Terms like CPRG, JRPG, and WRPG are great for helping us pin labels on things for quick identification, but they have nothing to do with what RPG meant.

JRPGs are generally about stats with a moderately cliché story and are so far divorced from even relative reality as to be laughable. This is plenty clear in most of the over-wrought animations in the FF series.

CRPGs tried to emulate what RPGs were but the technology didn't allow it then and still doesn't truly allow it. Nobody even uses the term really other than people talking about the history of RPGs. These tended to be more hardcore with things like permanent death and specifically not having a map being a feature on purpose. This is as close as it gets and it's history. Nobody wants to play these games any more.

WRPGs just try to focus more on everything that JRPGs don't. They tried to explore settings that the traditional JRPGs don't cover and tend to focus more on character than numbers.

RPGs are the types of games where you can actually play a role. You can make mistakes. You can die... permanently. You can't be 7 different job classes. You are one type of character and play that role. You react in your role to a story that unfolds before you. That doesn't necessarily mean it's only D&D, but procedurally generated content and Turing test AI isn't at the level where you can have these games in any type of reality.

[Slothy]

FO3 fits quite squarely into the WRPG sub-genre; it's basically an Oblivion-style game with a futuristic setting. I can see Mass Effect blurring the lines a bit more, though.

Mass Effect did no more to blur the lines than Oblivion or Fallout 3 did. It's still very much a WRPG, and despite seeming more action oriented, that action was still limited by a mechanic that made it feel pretty turn based at times (guns overheating and needing to cool down). Bethesda's stuff actually leans more toward the action side of things than I would say the original ME does.

[ANGRYWOLF]

JRPGs aren't really RPGs, and never have been. It's just a term that most people associate with "rpg-like stat progression". If you want games that actually try to be like an RPG, you need to play western RPGs, and even these only scratch the surface of real roleplaying.

Yeah, it's tough to develop a definition of RPG which incorporates JRPGs but somehow manages to exclude Action/Adventure games. The Adventure games just add a little plot and there's less and less which distinguishes them.

Modern JRPGs could just be considered console movies with some gameplay elements. At least, that's what the Final Fantasy series seems to be moving towards anyway (FFXII was an exception).

which of course you are entitled to have.

FFXII was inadequate as far as plot and character development imo.

an rpg...of course jrpgs are rpgs in my opinion, just like western games like Baldur's gate are.

I exclude Oblivion as you can do absolutely nothing in that game and still play it.
You can write your own mods where you do nothing at all and still play it.

An rpg has a purpose a goal you need to achieve. And you put your character or characters as actors in that role of achievers.
Usually there's some earth shaking goal to be achieved such as saving the world or your country or kingdom.
Some times the characters set out to achieve this goal and sometimes they stumble across it and must do it to achieve their main goal.

I like towns/villages/cities in my rpgs and npcs you interact with along the way but that's a preference not required for a game to be an rpg imo.

Anyway, that's my view but no one is required to accept it. Everyone is entitled to have their own view/vision of what an rpg is.

:)

[NorthernChaosGod]

I really don't think the term "RPG" should even be used anymore, unless you're talking about a game like Fable or Oblivion I suppose. Games like Final Fantasy VII and Xenogears are no more "Role-Playing Games" than Bayonetta or Resident Evil.

I remember when I first saw Fallout 3 and Mass Effect and they were labeled as "RPG" I thought "What? These aren't at all RPGs!" but now that I think about it those are actually more RPGs than FF games (save XI) are.

I would definitely say that Fallout 3 and Mass Effect are RPGs. Mass Effect is very similar to the KOTOR games, except with guns.

[Madame Adequate]

ME is an interesting one. I don't really think FO3 encapsulated the 'RP' elements terribly well (But it was a pretty awesome game outside of that) though it was a fairly good step up from Oblivion. ME, I'm pretty sure, can be classed as a fairly good approximation of what an RPG should be.

Primarily I base this opinion on the fact that, well, you've got choices and those choices can have consequences. The most striking example is Wrex when you're on Virmire, where your character build choices throughout the game can influence your available dialogue options and thus, the outcome of the scenario. Which is pretty much the entire point of the genre. (See also: The original Fallout, where proper dialogue choices, informed by the right stats and having done the right preceding quests, mean you can basically talk the last boss out of it.) Unfortunately it looks like the real promise of the series - that your choices would persist through the entire trilogy - might not be lived up to. Even so it's nice that sarsaparilla matters.

Actually on further thinking I might be being unkind to FO3. It does have choices and consequences (Derp, Megaton). I just feel they're poorly implemented and quite bluntly applied.

[Wolf Kanno]

JRPGs aren't really RPGs, and never have been. It's just a term that most people associate with "rpg-like stat progression". If you want games that actually try to be like an RPG, you need to play western RPGs, and even these only scratch the surface of real roleplaying.

Yeah, it's tough to develop a definition of RPG which incorporates JRPGs but somehow manages to exclude Action/Adventure games. The Adventure games just add a little plot and there's less and less which distinguishes them.

Modern JRPGs could just be considered console movies with some gameplay elements. At least, that's what the Final Fantasy series seems to be moving towards anyway (FFXII was an exception).

Still, I feel their are JRPGs that are still far from interactive movies. The SMT series alone are closer to what RPGs were back in the early 16-bit era or even 8-bit era. Even the story heavy Persona series offer great amounts of choice for the player which actually do effect the ending and outcomes of the game depending on which installment we are talking about.

I guess this will be discussed with a question I'll ask at the end of my post.


It's like pronography, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

I like where this topic is going. :plumcheer:

But I guess this kinda brings me to my point, we are still able to distinguish an RPG from other titles but what characteristics does an modern RPG hold that we are able to identity and then distinguish? Is it simply a void? We know its not an RPG cause it isn't like an action game or its obviously not an FPS? Or does it actually have characteristics that make it unique from other genres?



The term RPG is BS to begin with. The broad number of things it has evolved to cover are far from the table-top style games it originated from. Terms like CPRG, JRPG, and WRPG are great for helping us pin labels on things for quick identification, but they have nothing to do with what RPG meant.

JRPGs are generally about stats with a moderately cliché story and are so far divorced from even relative reality as to be laughable. This is plenty clear in most of the over-wrought animations in the FF series.

CRPGs tried to emulate what RPGs were but the technology didn't allow it then and still doesn't truly allow it. Nobody even uses the term really other than people talking about the history of RPGs. These tended to be more hardcore with things like permanent death and specifically not having a map being a feature on purpose. This is as close as it gets and it's history. Nobody wants to play these games any more.

WRPGs just try to focus more on everything that JRPGs don't. They tried to explore settings that the traditional JRPGs don't cover and tend to focus more on character than numbers.

RPGs are the types of games where you can actually play a role. You can make mistakes. You can die... permanently. You can't be 7 different job classes. You are one type of character and play that role. You react in your role to a story that unfolds before you. That doesn't necessarily mean it's only D&D, but procedurally generated content and Turing test AI isn't at the level where you can have these games in any type of reality.

But as language and society change does that not mean that each generation has the ability to change meaning to suit their own cultural needs and way of thinking?

Perhaps the definition is only lost cause its been transformed between generations and what I grew up with as meaning RPG is no longer the meaning of the popular culture. This is just one way I have been looking at it. If the definition itself hasn't completely changed then perhaps we are in the midst of a cultural redefinition of the term.

Even traditional RPGs are now relegated to the term "Tabletop" or "Pen and Paper" RPG which has in my mind at least placed it on the same level as other RPG genres instead of treating it as its historical ancestor for the splintered genres. To me, I feel the definition of an RPG has changed with popular culture, but this why I as my question to see what popular culture chooses to believe it to be.



An rpg has a purpose a goal you need to achieve. And you put your character or characters as actors in that role of achievers.
Usually there's some earth shaking goal to be achieved such as saving the world or your country or kingdom.
Some times the characters set out to achieve this goal and sometimes they stumble across it and must do it to achieve their main goal.

I like towns/villages/cities in my rpgs and npcs you interact with along the way but that's a preference not required for a game to be an rpg imo.

Anyway, that's my view but no one is required to accept it. Everyone is entitled to have their own view/vision of what an rpg is.

:)

The only question I will raise about your definition (and please don't see this as criticism, I am simply asking a question in regards to my observation of your reasoning). If a goal in the sense of story is the only thing needed to be qualified as an RPG then would you consider Metal Gear Solid 4 to be an RPG as it fulfills all the basic requirements for your definition. If not, then why?

I honestly feel many people share your definition but this brings me back to my original point that games have reached a point now where having a great story is almost a requirement. Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid would be half the game if they lacked their strong narratives and compelling cast. In an age where action games, FPS, and even some racing games are creating stronger and stronger narratives, where does the mid-90's definition stand in all this?

If RPGs are simply about choices then would GTA be an RPG? Where do sand box titles fit into all this?

My final question for now would simply be this: What is a JRPG? What characteristics must it hold to be considered an RPG and what is it actually allowed to to do within the constraints of these rules and characteristics.

[Mirage]

But I guess this kinda brings me to my point, we are still able to distinguish an RPG from other titles but what characteristics does an modern RPG hold that we are able to identity and then distinguish? Is it simply a void? We know its not an RPG cause it isn't like an action game or its obviously not an FPS? Or does it actually have characteristics that make it unique from other genres?

In a JRPG it's these things that let people identify them as a "JRPG".
Exp system where defeating x amount of enemies increases various statistics.
Usually turn-based or pseudo-turn-based (such as ATB) combat.

In a WRPG it's usually these things:
Exp system where defeating x amount of enemies increases various statistics.
Skills that have a use outside of battle.
Multiple choice on how to solve many problems.
Usually realtime action-based combat, with some mods.

[Slothy]

Actually on further thinking I might be being unkind to FO3. It does have choices and consequences (Derp, Megaton). I just feel they're poorly implemented and quite bluntly applied.

To be honest, I feel the same way about most of Mass Effect. I can count literally two choices in the game that actually affect the story in any great respect (involving Wrex, Ashley and the other dude who's name escapes me because I didn't like him). And even those don't really change the overall story if I'm not mistaken. They simply determine which characters you get to use. For all of the ability to role play that these WRPG's supposedly give, it's dissapointing how little your choices matter.

Anyway, as for the definition of what constitutes an RPG, I typically consider something to be an RPG based on a few factors.

Stat development - whether it's as simple as leveling up in the original FF or more complicated and customized such as Oblivion, most RPG's feature this aspect of character growth.

Strategic battle system - This is more common for JRPG's to be honest as they tend to have battle systems that try and focus on strategy to varying degrees of success. WRPG's usually still include strategy, but recent titles like Fallout 3 and Oblivion haven't really required it to be honest, and even Mass Effect was pretty light on how much thought you had to put into combat.

Focus on story - Yeah, a lot of genres can focus on the story, but it's not really an RPG if it doesn't. Whether it's a linear tale like in FF, or something focused on giving the character choices that rarely ever matter (Fallout 3), if there isn't some focus on the story and characters then it's probably not an RPG.

To be honest, I like Bolivar's definition the best, and it's true of any genre to be honest. I can't really define it but I know it when I see it.

[Raistlin]

Still, I feel their are JRPGs that are still far from interactive movies. The SMT series alone are closer to what RPGs were back in the early 16-bit era or even 8-bit era. Even the story heavy Persona series offer great amounts of choice for the player which actually do effect the ending and outcomes of the game depending on which installment we are talking about.

By "modern JRPGs," I meant only fairly recent titles. There are plenty of JRPGs in the past decade that are not just movies. And maybe I should narrow it further to "modern FFs," because the main examples I was thinking of are FFX and FFXIII.

[Levian]

an RPG is a game that has more talking than action. :D?

[AntRid]

I define an RPG as something where the main focus is telling a story that tries to get you emotionally involved with the characters to the point that you care about them, at least on some level.

JRPG and WRPG approach the RPG formula differently. JPRGs take you along with the characters while WPRG’s place you as the main character but both still try and get you emotionally involved.



If a goal in the sense of story is the only thing needed to be qualified as an RPG then would you consider Metal Gear Solid 4 to be an RPG as it fulfills all the basic requirements for your definition. If not, then why?


MGS4, which I haven’t played so if I get this a bit off you know why, has a lot of emphasis on action and marketed as such. If someone who likes action games walks into a shop or local torrent site they would pick MGS4 over ME. Someone looking for an RPG however would pick the latter despite both having a strong story

[Depression Moon]

RPGs more focused on story generally. Combat is mostly different there's the half that involve turn based strategy like DQ and FF and then there's everything else. Those others are made as RPGs because they have strong emphasis on stat progression and equipment upgrades.

[ANGRYWOLF]

so I can't speak from personal knowledge about them.

I don't think any of the GTA games have the country or world at stake with your actions. But it seems very rpg like from what I've seen of those games.I've never played any GTA games either.

I have played Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2 and they don't seem much different from FF to me.

:)

[Depression Moon]

By GTA do you mean Grand Theft Auto?

[krissy]

good
the idea of cities always made the plausibility of these games questionable for me

especially if my pixelly avatar was godzilla sized when nearing one

'hey guys i need to buy some potions lemme just visit kalm oops there goes the churchhouse oh crap just stepped in the hospital'

[Skyblade]

I fail to see how a WRPG has any more "role playing" in it than a JRPG, to be honest. Take Mass Effect and FFVII. In ME, you play the role of Commander Shepard. In FFVII, you are playing the role of Cloud. The introduction of a morality system is the only real difference in terms of how the roles are fulfilled. It doesn't change the way the story plays out, only a couple minor dialogue lines. If that's all it takes, why doesn't FFVII count with it's moral decisions (You get to choose to steal from a kid in Wall Market, or from the baby chickens in the Corel Mountains...)? You are given a role in the game, and you have to play through it.

And now I get to sit back and watch as everyone complains about me.:D

[black orb]

>>> Equip sword and shield, go to the Cursed Castle and save the Princess..:luca:

[ANGRYWOLF]

By GTA do you mean Grand Theft Auto?

so I replied to his comments.

Never played it.

I prefer sf or fantasy settings.Being a criminal doesn't appeal to me.

:)

[NorthernChaosGod]

I fail to see how a WRPG has any more "role playing" in it than a JRPG, to be honest. Take Mass Effect and FFVII. In ME, you play the role of Commander Shepard. In FFVII, you are playing the role of Cloud. The introduction of a morality system is the only real difference in terms of how the roles are fulfilled. It doesn't change the way the story plays out, only a couple minor dialogue lines. If that's all it takes, why doesn't FFVII count with it's moral decisions (You get to choose to steal from a kid in Wall Market, or from the baby chickens in the Corel Mountains...)? You are given a role in the game, and you have to play through it.

And now I get to sit back and watch as everyone complains about me.:D

Is there a part in ME that you control someone other than Shepard? Cloud isn't in your control the whole game.

[Skyblade]

Other than that, this game is a great outlet, a blank slate to express your Strategy RPG wishes.

So, how do you guys feel this sub-genre fits in with our definitions? Tactical RPGs fall even further outside the scope than most JRPGs. Do they still warrant the same title?

[Yeargdribble]

The terminology lost all meaning in any pure sense a long time ago. Stop trying to define it in some cookie-cutter way that excludes some and includes others based on personal preference because if you got truly puritanical about it no current video game RPGs would be considered RPGs in the sense of the original meaning of the term.

Just allow people to keep coming up with sub-genres all day long and call them what you will. It's such a silly debate when people get worked up over whether or not some game should truly be called something or other.

The need for us to pigeon-hole things may be why it's so hard for the gaming industry to do anything new and different. If you can't slap a solid genre that everyone can relate to as the label then you might as well toss the game in the can. If you're steadfast and get it out there then someone will have to come up with a label for it.

Thereafter everyone will start mass producing crap in that same new genre and before long the fanboys will get butthurt and say that every game that ever uses "x mechanic" is a "x game" clone.


*NERDRAGE*

[Wolf Kanno]

In a JRPG it's these things that let people identify them as a "JRPG".
Exp system where defeating x amount of enemies increases various statistics.
Usually turn-based or pseudo-turn-based (such as ATB) combat.

In a WRPG it's usually these things:
Exp system where defeating x amount of enemies increases various statistics.
Skills that have a use outside of battle.
Multiple choice on how to solve many problems.
Usually realtime action-based combat, with some mods.




To be honest, I feel the same way about most of Mass Effect. I can count literally two choices in the game that actually affect the story in any great respect (involving Wrex, Ashley and the other dude who's name escapes me because I didn't like him). And even those don't really change the overall story if I'm not mistaken. They simply determine which characters you get to use. For all of the ability to role play that these WRPG's supposedly give, it's dissapointing how little your choices matter.

Anyway, as for the definition of what constitutes an RPG, I typically consider something to be an RPG based on a few factors.

Stat development - whether it's as simple as leveling up in the original FF or more complicated and customized such as Oblivion, most RPG's feature this aspect of character growth.

Strategic battle system - This is more common for JRPG's to be honest as they tend to have battle systems that try and focus on strategy to varying degrees of success. WRPG's usually still include strategy, but recent titles like Fallout 3 and Oblivion haven't really required it to be honest, and even Mass Effect was pretty light on how much thought you had to put into combat.

Focus on story - Yeah, a lot of genres can focus on the story, but it's not really an RPG if it doesn't. Whether it's a linear tale like in FF, or something focused on giving the character choices that rarely ever matter (Fallout 3), if there isn't some focus on the story and characters then it's probably not an RPG.

To be honest, I like Bolivar's definition the best, and it's true of any genre to be honest. I can't really define it but I know it when I see it.

I guess my next question for you two is simply this, does an RPG need to have all those requirement or does it only need one or a few to be considered an RPG? If so, which ones are more important than others?



MGS4, which I haven’t played so if I get this a bit off you know why, has a lot of emphasis on action and marketed as such. If someone who likes action games walks into a shop or local torrent site they would pick MGS4 over ME. Someone looking for an RPG however would pick the latter despite both having a strong story

Actually, the story is one of the major things people play the MGS series for. The MGS series is what made action games feel like big budget movies. Hell, MGS4's biggest complaint from some fans is what JRPGs usually get nailed with and that is having too much story and not enough gameplay. Its a very cutscene heavy game. If I worked in a game store and was asked to recommend a good story based game I would probably recommend an MGS title before an RPG, especially in regards to game released in the last few years (I would even recommend Ico or SotC but that's another can of worms entirely) so it still stands that other genres are really getting into the whole story niche that RPGs held for years.

Halo of all things is actually loved by its fans for its story as well as its game mechanics and BioShock and Half Life 2 are both titles that have really taken story telling into the forefront of the FPS genre. MGS, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Prince of Persia, and DMC are all games on both sides of the ocean that are highly praised for their excellent stories and narratives.



The terminology lost all meaning in any pure sense a long time ago. Stop trying to define it in some cookie-cutter way that excludes some and includes others based on personal preference because if you got truly puritanical about it no current video game RPGs would be considered RPGs in the sense of the original meaning of the term.

I only wish to see what others think, really by todays standards I would say most genres don't exist anymore cause everything is beginning to meld with each other but still, its amusing no less to see how others would define such a thing.


Just allow people to keep coming up with sub-genres all day long and call them what you will. It's such a silly debate when people get worked up over whether or not some game should truly be called something or other.

I don't feel anyone is really worked up here Yearg. This whole conversation is just a playful debate. The fact is that RPG really has just splintered and the word now means the sum of its parts but that doesn't necessarily mean we can't pull out the root that connects them all. ;)


The need for us to pigeon-hole things may be why it's so hard for the gaming industry to do anything new and different. If you can't slap a solid genre that everyone can relate to as the label then you might as well toss the game in the can. If you're steadfast and get it out there then someone will have to come up with a label for it.

Thereafter everyone will start mass producing crap in that same new genre and before long the fanboys will get butthurt and say that every game that ever uses "x mechanic" is a "x game" clone.
*NERDRAGE*

Nerdrage indeed, to be honest I feel that most big budget companies shy away from true experimentation because they try to throw huge budgets behind them and if they flop its a bad financial investment. With the advent of more independent smaller companies and their huge success on DLC networks, I feel we are really beginning to see some amazing game design coming out of the indie market and there success is now allowing us to see bigger companies try their hand at it too by releasing lower budget titles with more experimentation. The World Ends With You is probably one of the most amazing SE titles in terms of game design and direction to come out of Square in decades.

Even old genres like the point and click adventure games have returned thanks to the DS and even some old genres or game types are starting to make there way back to the forefront of gaming thanks to DLC and handhelds. Of course this really has nothing to do with the topic but this is my take on the real problem of innovation in the industry.

[Slothy]

To be honest, I feel the same way about most of Mass Effect. I can count literally two choices in the game that actually affect the story in any great respect (involving Wrex, Ashley and the other dude who's name escapes me because I didn't like him). And even those don't really change the overall story if I'm not mistaken. They simply determine which characters you get to use. For all of the ability to role play that these WRPG's supposedly give, it's dissapointing how little your choices matter.

Anyway, as for the definition of what constitutes an RPG, I typically consider something to be an RPG based on a few factors.

Stat development - whether it's as simple as leveling up in the original FF or more complicated and customized such as Oblivion, most RPG's feature this aspect of character growth.

Strategic battle system - This is more common for JRPG's to be honest as they tend to have battle systems that try and focus on strategy to varying degrees of success. WRPG's usually still include strategy, but recent titles like Fallout 3 and Oblivion haven't really required it to be honest, and even Mass Effect was pretty light on how much thought you had to put into combat.

Focus on story - Yeah, a lot of genres can focus on the story, but it's not really an RPG if it doesn't. Whether it's a linear tale like in FF, or something focused on giving the character choices that rarely ever matter (Fallout 3), if there isn't some focus on the story and characters then it's probably not an RPG.

To be honest, I like Bolivar's definition the best, and it's true of any genre to be honest. I can't really define it but I know it when I see it.

I guess my next question for you two is simply this, does an RPG need to have all those requirement or does it only need one or a few to be considered an RPG? If so, which ones are more important than others?

I'd definitely lump story focus and stat development in as the most important factors. Story focus doesn't have to just mean having a long involved, or even that original story though, it could also mean being able to develop your character through the game. I mean to be perfectly honest, Mass Effect's story was pretty cliche sci-fi fodder, but the character interaction made it better than it really was even if your choices didn't matter that much.

Stat development is largely what separates other genres from RPG's though because even while other genres take on elements that were traditionally the domain of RPG's such as the focus on story or, even some more strategic battle systems, actually being able to develop your character how you like in any significant depth is still pretty much relegated to RPG's.

Like I said in my other post, a strategic combat system is certainly part of most RPG's, but the level of strategy can vary so much (largely due to poor game balance) that it's really not as important as others. Some games pull off a strategic combat system well like Final Fantasy IX or Persona 3 (AI teammates aside), but others like FFVIII, FFVI, and Fallout 3 have only a minimum amount of strategy involved but no one would accuse them of being anything other than RPG's (you could argue about Fallout 3, but considering the heavy use of VATS and the fact that it's a piss poor FPS suggests otherwise.

Long story short, character building and a focus on story are the two most important elements.

[Mercen-X]

Strategy-Adventure

[Zeromus_X]

I would define an RPG as a game where you play the role of a character (whether a predetermined JRPG character or a fully customizable WRPG/tabletop character) and there is some form of character customization or variety of character types available.

[NeoCracker]

I would define an RPG as a game where you play the role of a character (whether a predetermined JRPG character or a fully customizable WRPG/tabletop character) and there is some form of character customization or variety of character types available.

Army of Two matches that description perfectly. :p

I think I'll go with an console RPG, at it's core, is a major focus on Stat Developement.

Story is really about as relevant to a game genre as lyrics are to a music genre.

Nowadays, however, a lot of games are using stat development, and thus the RPG element is prelevant in most games. To be considered an RPG I believe the main focus of the gameplay revolves around your stat developement, whether custom or predetermined.

[Skyblade]

I fail to see how a WRPG has any more "role playing" in it than a JRPG, to be honest. Take Mass Effect and FFVII. In ME, you play the role of Commander Shepard. In FFVII, you are playing the role of Cloud. The introduction of a morality system is the only real difference in terms of how the roles are fulfilled. It doesn't change the way the story plays out, only a couple minor dialogue lines. If that's all it takes, why doesn't FFVII count with it's moral decisions (You get to choose to steal from a kid in Wall Market, or from the baby chickens in the Corel Mountains...)? You are given a role in the game, and you have to play through it.

And now I get to sit back and watch as everyone complains about me.:D

Is there a part in ME that you control someone other than Shepard? Cloud isn't in your control the whole game.

Well... There is in ME2. Does that mean the sequel isn't an RPG?

[qwertysaur]

JRPG's are almost Visual novels now :p

[Polnareff]

What is an RPG?

A miserable little pile of sidequests!

But enough talk! Have at you! :p

[BG-57]

I tend to define RPG games in terms of what they're not rather than what they are. If a game has an emphasis on scaring the player with monsters, it's survival horror, not RPG. If the emphasis is on gunplay skill then it's a FPS, not an RPG. If it has emphasis on manuvering around levels through difficult physical movement then it's a platformer, not an RPG.

To be sure, these non-RPG's have incorperated a lot of RPG elements in them over time (compare ME with Doom 2 say), but their specialized focus tends to shunt them into categories while RPG's avoid them.