What is a RPG?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANGRYWOLF

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WK

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

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

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.

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.

:)

By GTA do you mean Grand Theft Auto?

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'

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

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