An RPG for me is a game that draws you in to acting like a character (consciously or not) in the game world, through immersion, dialogue, and good writing and design. That is why Deus Ex is the best RPG on the market, and why I despise RPGs like Oblivion (and all JRPGs) that never really escape from their experience meters, levels, and stats.
What are the core elements that define the RPG as opposed to any other game genre? To answer that, I'd say that it's important to start with tabletop RPGs, which we all agree are the ancestor of the modern computer-based RPGs. In the tabletop format, you have some number of players (presumably more than one, but perhaps a solitaire variant is possible), each of whom controls one or more characters in the game world. Hence the "role playing". They assume the role of whatever characters they control. Naturally, the motivations, needs, and desires of these characters are going to intersect, and when those drives oppose one another you wind up with a conflict. When you have a conflict between characters, you run into what I call the "cowboys and indians problem".
Imagine that two boys are playing "cowboys and indians". One is pretending to be a cowboy, and the other an indian. Since these two groups are perpetually trying to kill one another, the cowboy boy pantomimes firing a revolver at the indian boy and yells "Pow! You're dead!" The indian boy retorts "Nuh-uh! You missed!" He then pantomimes firing an arrow from a bow at the cowboy boy and yells "Thwip! You're dead!" The cowboy boy says, "Nuh-uh! You missed!" Thus the problem: Who wins? Presumably someone has to get hit and die, but whom?
Role-playing game systems solve this problem by providing an impartial mediator between the two conflicting sides. The virtual conflict is resolved through how well the two sides perform in some abstraction of the conflict. It can be as simple as taking turns trying to roll a six on a six-sided die (a potential solution to the situation above), or as complicated as trying to reduce a hit-point count to 0 with an array of potential actions, each with their own rules and mechanics. Naturally, not all conflicts have to be physical. It's rarer, but one can also solve social conflicts through the mechanical mediator. When two characters are trying to convince the king to aid their respective nations, which negotiator will he favor?
This reliance on an acknowledged decision-making system in cases on conflict is what defines role-playing games as a genre, I feel. In almost any game commonly acknowledged as an RPG, you'll see at least one gameplay element involving a point where an action's effect is reported in terms of its result in the underlying mechanics. Most often this takes the form of a damage report after an attack (but not always). The important thing is that the abstraction is immediately apparent to the player. When you attack an enemy in Neverwinter Nights, you're informed of what you rolled for your attack, which bonuses were applied, and whether the roll beat the enemy's Armor Class. If the enemy is injured, you're informed of exactly how many health points they lost. In a more action-oriented game (let's say Left 4 Dead), the abstraction is buried much deeper. You don't know how much health any one Infected has. You don't know exactly what the value of your own footspeed is, or how much damage the guns put out per shot unless you dig into the console and go looking for weapon damage values. When you shoot a zombie, some blood appears on them but you aren't given the number that represents how much damage they took. In an RPG, things like that would be front and center.
This rule for determining what is and what isn't an RPG has an implication that's consistent with what we've seen in computer RPGs these days: no actual "role-playing" is required, only the explicit abstraction of some hypthetical conflict into a mechanical set of rules. One could argue that they can't be "role-playing games" if there isn't any role-playing being done, but so far as I'm concerned that's semantic nitpicking. They grew out of "true" role-playing games, and the name is still more descriptive of the genre than anything else that's been proposed.
Of course, it would be a mistake to think of this distinction as a hard and fast rule, where any game that qualifies, no matter how tangentially, is an RPG, or any game that fails to meet every requirement can't be. Genres run across a continuum, which is why we have hybrid genres, and games that are described as "Genre X, with elements of Genre Y".
A significant problem with this formulation is that a lot of board games, like Settlers of Catan or Monopoly or Life, become RPGs. I'm not sure how to handle that problem yet.
Kupi on
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
So was Mass Effect a good RPG? To me it felt like I was watching a character play out the game more than I thought like I was the character, since I rarely got to chose the options I wanted to for my character and how cinematic the dialogue trees were.
So was Mass Effect a good RPG? To me it felt like I was watching a character play out the game more than I thought like I was the character, since I rarely got to chose the options I wanted to for my character and how cinematic the dialogue trees were.
Did we play the same Mass Effect? The bulk of the time I spent playing the game involved either fighting and gaining XP (and then levels/skills/etc), or talking to people with anywhere between 3 and 6 options for each line of dialogue. You could play out your character in a large number of ways.
The flaws in ME (despite my love of the game) come from the almost total lack of consequences for your "moral" choices made throughout the game.
Vincent Grayson on
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
jRPG isn't a real term, no one actually uses it outside of forum discussions.
Pretty much, though if you walked into a gamestop and asked for jrpgs, they'd probably know what you were talking about. Its not like you can't play jrpgs on the computer, many are. Which makes the term "crpg" ridiculous to me.
I think it's more useful to use WRPG and JRPG, but truth be told, I can't think of any PC JRPGs (aside from some multiplatform/ported titles)
Granted, there's plenty of console-based WRPGs these days.
Well, I am talking about ports/multiplatform.
Also, you have stuff like Mass Effect and Kotor, which are console based games ported to the PC, in just the same manner.
A significant problem with this formulation is that a lot of board games, like Settlers of Catan or Monopoly or Life, become RPGs. I'm not sure how to handle that problem yet.
Would the lack of changing/improving skills help? There's no level ups in Monopoly. It's like everyone is already level 99 and have access to all skills, all the time, provided they have the money for it.
While life has different stages and different story paths, changing stages isn't the same as leveling up.
I don't know, Kupi, I think you better described simulations, or any kind of formalized game, rather than RPGs. I wouldn't count Settlers of Catan or Monopoly, since they are devoid of characters. I don't think levels enter into it.
Color perception is subjective. Your orange is my red.
More at 11.
Dude, what if colors were all, like... different for each of us man? What if you saw red as green, but because since all you know is like... that's what red is, you didn't know any different. We could all be seeing totally different things, man. Wicked heavy.
Am I the only one who thinks semantic arguments are balls? They never get anywhere, everyone has their own opinion that no-one else listens to, and there's really no point to them in the first place since it's only a label to help lump things into general categories.
I mean, if there was some kind of crazy revelation in here, and everyone realised that "RPG" doesn't apply to half the games that it used to apply to, the games don't become any less fun as a result.
Maybe the OP just likes seeing 12 pages of argument.
Centipeed on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Color perception is subjective. Your orange is my red.
More at 11.
Dude, what if colors were all, like... different for each of us man? What if you saw red as green, but because since all you know is like... that's what red is, you didn't know any different. We could all be seeing totally different things, man. Wicked heavy.
I'm talking about gradients in perception. Any one person see's a given gradient differently.
It can change depending on the colors next to it as well.
There's no right answer.
And I'm serious.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Color perception is subjective. Your orange is my red.
More at 11.
Dude, what if colors were all, like... different for each of us man? What if you saw red as green, but because since all you know is like... that's what red is, you didn't know any different. We could all be seeing totally different things, man. Wicked heavy.
I'm talking about gradients in perception. Any one person see's a given gradient differently.
It can change depending on the colors next to it as well.
That is a pretty interesting viewpoint. What I would like to remark on is that the progression from cowboys to indians to actual roleplaying games is important and probably is a good way to define the genre, but I do not think this is necessarily so. There are, for example, still examples of freeform roleplaying taking place where there are pretty much no rules. I would hesitate to say that these are not roleplaying games, I would prefer to say that rules are created to aid roleplaying rather than define it.
A roleplaying game without clear rules may not be a very good roleplaying game, but that is different from saying that the definition does not apply to it.
Vic on
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Color perception is subjective. Your orange is my red.
More at 11.
Dude, what if colors were all, like... different for each of us man? What if you saw red as green, but because since all you know is like... that's what red is, you didn't know any different. We could all be seeing totally different things, man. Wicked heavy.
I'm talking about gradients in perception. Any one person see's a given gradient differently.
It can change depending on the colors next to it as well.
There's no right answer.
And I'm serious.
Yeah, but it's red. Quite quite red.
Look!
See. It all makes sense now.
Where is that picard hand on head jpeg when you need it?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Back from the dead.
I wanted to thank all participants, especially Couscous and Khavall. You've all (mostly :P ) raised interesting and important points that made me re-evaluate my opinions. Please excuse me if I came off as overzealous, I do have this tendency.
So, part two, based on my thoughts after reading the discussion.
The name of a genre should describe the gameplay as accurately as possible and convenient. The core gameplay element.
Allow me to repeat:
In strategy games you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In racing games you need to race to win.
In shooters you have to shoot things to win.
In platformers you have to maneuver platforms to win.
In beat'em'ups you have to beat them up to win.
Simple and elegant. I agree that there are misnomers, like the adventure genre mentioned by Couscous, but I wanted to focus on RPG.
Then why is RPG such a difficult term? The name implies, after all, that you simply have to role-play to win.
What is role playing in general?
Basing on the simple example of an actor playing a role, we can easily say that playing a role means acting according to your character.
Khavall suggests that we have to employ a definition specific to the discussed subject, however.
I agree. After all you play a role of Master Chief in Halo, yet it is a shooter. You play a role of Garret the Master Thief in Thief, yet it is a sneaker. In Race Driver: GRID you play the role of a race driver, yet it is a racing game. Why? Because the CORE GAMEPLAY element in those games is, respectively, shooting, sneaking and racing.
Why isn't Diablo a role-playing game? Because the only role you can assume in this game is that of a fighter (no matter the tools he employs to fight, be it melee, bows or magic), the only thing you can do in this game is fight (traditionally, we call such games hack'n'slash). You have to FIGHT to win the game.
Why isn't Oblivion a role-playing game? Because -despite the fact that you can assume various roles in it, you can be a diplomat or a thief- the vast majority of the gameplay is still combat (even the thieves' guild quest involve mainly combat, especially in the latter part of the questline). You have to FIGHT to win the game. There probably are situations where combat is possible but not necessary- but it's the majority of the gameplay that describes the game, not separate situations.
Why aren't most JRPGs role-playing games? Because, despite the fact that you take part in a story (and it can be a very good story), the only part of the game that actually requires player input (also known as gameplay) is COMBAT- therefore COMBAT is the core gameplay element. You have to FIGHT to win the game.
Why is Fallout a role-playing game? Hmmmm...
Is it a shooter? No. A vast majority of situations can be handled without combat. Is it a diplomacy game? No- despite many possible diplomatic options, you can solve most situations through properly applied violence. Is it a sneaker? No, there are a few sneaky missions but they're neither prominent nor required to win.
So what do you have to do to win Fallout? You have to PLAY YOUR ROLE. YOU HAVE TO ACT ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF YOUR CHARACTER(S). Same for Arcanum. Same for Planescape:Torment.
If there were a more specific way to describe the gameplay, it would define the genre. Of course, you could call it a fighting/sneaking/diplomacy game, but that would only be true if ALL of those elements AT ONCE were required to win.
If you are forced into a role and you don't get to change it (Halo, Thief), it's the role that defines the genre of the game. If you get choice- it is a role-playing game. If you get multiple choices but only one possile outcome- then it is a very poorly done role-playing game.
Somebody mentioned RPGs without stats. I gave it some thought and yes- it is possible. If role-playing means "acting accordingly to the nature of your character(s) we should take a closer look at what can define that nature.
-Physical attributes
-Personality
-Likes and dislikes
-Moral values
-Skills
-Past deeds
As you can see, at least one of them (past deeds) can be defined without stats. My dream RPG would employ all those elements for both the PC and NPCs (in fact, I'm preparing a detailed devplan for such a game and I'm planning to make it).
I think this is all I have to say for now. I'm still eager for discussion, of course.
In strategy games you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In racing games you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In shooters you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In platformers you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In beat'em'ups you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
You don't have to act your role in Fallout. It's quite the opposite. You can switch sides all the time and do whatever you want. That's not playing a role.
I would say RPG is defined by the ability to pour over stats, and the ability to change statistical factors of which the most common is via a "level up."
How about you stop trying to change the definition of RPG and maybe call what you're trying to define Role-Playing Game? So you can still say that while jRPGs are RPGs, Fallout is a true Role-Playing Game.
But
In strategy games you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In racing games you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In shooters you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In platformers you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In beat'em'ups you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
YES! (although it wouldn't hurt if you provided a bit more specific examples).
Also:
In Halo you play a role.
In Thief you play a role.
In Race Driver you play a role.
In Civilization you play a role.
That's why it is the CORE GAMEPLAY element that matters. Sometimes this is a bit vague, but surely, if COMBAT is the only gameplay element, it leaves no place for discussion. For example: if the focus is on tactical combat played in turns (Incubation), we call it a turn-based tactical strategy.
You don't have to act your role in Fallout. It's quite the opposite. You can switch sides all the time and do whatever you want. That's not playing a role.
Just because you're constantly changing your role (I don't see why would you), it doesn't mean you're not playing the role that you've currently assumed. The role is there, and it is the only thing that defines the gameplay. Combat isn't. Diplomacy isn't. Sneaking isn't. Strategic thinking- maybe, but it's much less important than any of the previous three you've decided to choose.
I would say RPG is defined by the ability to pour over stats, and the ability to change statistical factors of which the most common is via a "level up."
I'll employ the same trick that you did: but in Civilization IV you can pour over stats and you get the ability to change statistical factors of which the most common is via a "level up."
Role playing is not a 'core gameplay' of any video game, and you need to get this nonsense out of your head right now. It's a feature of any type of interactivity involving a character in a story.
You can role play in fallout, or you can not. If you ignore the story and just build a character to win fights, you're not role playing. Does the game stop being an rpg then? Does it become a 'turn based combat simulation'? A tactical war-game? These things do exist, you know.
You could just as easily say 'well then I'm just playing a character who only cares about fighting'. But the core gameplay is still not about 'role playing' - it's about fighting.
edit:: also, your definition seems to basically mean 'different methods of solving problems == role playing'. This is also not particularly good.
Role playing is not a 'core gameplay' of any video game, and you need to get this nonsense out of your head right now. It's a feature of any type of interactivity involving a character in a story.
You can role play in fallout, or you can not. If you ignore the story and just build a character to win fights, you're not role playing. Does the game stop being an rpg then? Does it become a 'turn based combat simulation'? A tactical war-game? These things do exist, you know.
You could just as easily say 'well then I'm just playing a character who only cares about fighting'. But the core gameplay is still not about 'role playing' - it's about fighting.
And this, my friend, is where you didn't read my post.
In such situation, fighting isn't the core gameplay element of the game- it is simply the one you've chosen. If it was the only thing possible, then yes- it would make the game a 'turn based combat simulation' or a 'tactical war-game'.
But if you've got choice, that element doesn't define the genre, and it's role-playing that does. If you've built a fighter-diplomat PC then you'll probably role-play a figher-diplomat. If you've built a fighter and you're role-playing a diplomat, then you lose. (and if you don't lose, then the game is badly designed).
Role playing is not a 'core gameplay' of any video game, and you need to get this nonsense out of your head right now. It's a feature of any type of interactivity involving a character in a story.
You can role play in fallout, or you can not. If you ignore the story and just build a character to win fights, you're not role playing. Does the game stop being an rpg then? Does it become a 'turn based combat simulation'? A tactical war-game? These things do exist, you know.
You could just as easily say 'well then I'm just playing a character who only cares about fighting'. But the core gameplay is still not about 'role playing' - it's about fighting.
And this, my friend, is where you didn't read my post.
In such situation, fighting isn't the core gameplay element of the game- it is simply the one you've chosen. If it was the only thing possible, then yes- it would make the game a 'turn based combat simulation' or a 'tactical war-game'.
But if you've got choice, that element doesn't define the genre, and it's role-playing that does.
Having multiple options in what to do does not make 'role playing' a gameplay element. Because 'role playing' is not gameplay.
You seem to be equating role playing and sandbox games. Is Spore a role playing game? How about Black and White? Populous?
Role playing is when a series of actions you take, and your reactions to the world around you, fit together in a cohesive whole, and make sense in terms of a single character. In a game, it is created by the gameplay of the game - it is not a gameplay element in and of itself. It is what you feel when your actions fit.
I role played in GTA 4 - I always selected the options to let people live. It fit with my version of Niko.
I would say RPG is defined by the ability to pour over stats, and the ability to change statistical factors of which the most common is via a "level up."
I'll employ the same trick that you did: but in Civilization IV you can pour over stats and you get the ability to change statistical factors of which the most common is via a "level up."
Role playing is when a series of actions you take, and your reactions to the world around you, fit together in a cohesive whole, and make sense in terms of a single character. In a game, it is created by the gameplay of the game - it is not a gameplay element in and of itself. It is what you feel when your actions fit.
I role played in GTA 4 - I always selected the options to let people live. It fit with my version of Niko.
Is GTA 4 a role playing game?
I don't find it unreasonable to say that it is. It certainly is more of a roleplaying game than, say, diablo.
I still stand by my previous assertion and haven't seen anything that disagrees with it convincingly -
An RPG as it is currently is a game in which the characters attributes and skills, along with all modifiers, are the main factor in the games progression.
It encompasses all we've seen in what people think of RPGs. Is Oblivion an RPG? Yes. If a level 50 with 0 mace skill uses a mace they buy from some local vendor against some big enemy, they will have a much harder time, if they will even be able to actually win the fight than someone with 100 mace skill using super-daedric mace. While player skill is a contributing factor, the main factor is the character. Do we count the players ability to create a character as "player skill" and chalk it all up to player skill? No.
Now, does this go against the "role-playing" part of RPGs? Eh. Not really, since it's what RPGs are. So for games, "role-playing game" means "character-focused game".
Now, maybe there's an argument for what RPGs should be, which has something to do with dialogue focus, choice having an impact on the world, whatever you want it to be. The problem is that that's a dead-end discussion consisting of "Well but I like choice more!" and "Well in x game y happens so z must be true!"
"What is an RPG" though? It's a game where the focus of the mechanics of the games is the Characters skills, not the Players.
I'm using 'role playing game' as a collection of words in a phrase instead of rpg, because I mean the act of playing and getting into a role, as opposed to the generally accepted genre of rpg. I don't want to confuse the two.
Roleplaying Game taken literally is absolutely meaningless as a genre of games, because it applies to pretty much every singleplayer game ever. The RPG video game genre is defined by being similar in gameplay to tabletop RPGs(which are so named because playing a role is unusual in board games). So it really is just about dice rolling and leveling up.
I consider a game an RPG when: I kill/do stuff to get exp to better my skills in something. Whether it be increasing my stats, or increasing my abilities.
I think that genre titles are the sort of thing that everyone understands as long as no one tries to define them.
I am not getting into an argument over whether the Zapper is orange or red.
It's oranred.
Damned heretics.
That trigger looks red to me.
You fool! You'll kill us all!
It looks the same color as the word "Nintendo." Both are red.
The average colour sampled value from that photo is roughly e00406. All that is left is to look up the nearest named neighbour in a colour table. It's a shame it isn't so simple to define rpgs.
The main problem I see is when someone assumes "Role-playing game" means "Game in which a role is played"
RPG is a genre as defined by the canon of the genre, not a collection of words.
This is the most important thing. "Role playing game" is just a couple of broadly defined words.
Nowadays every game contains an element of every other game, and yet they still fit into specific genres. Why? Because the companies and the public say so, and there's no need to argue otherwise.
It's as was said just a few posts earlier. Modern racing games involve strategy, twitch action, third person or first person, sometimes a storyline with branching objectives, money management, vehicle stats, equipment upgrades. Most good RPGs involve strategy, twitch action (occasionally even in turn-based), third person or first person, etc. etc. Even some timed racing to complete an objective.
The genre is determined by the quantity of overlapping elements. If the stats are more prominent/important, then it's probably RPG or strategy, but not necessarily. Again, what it gets labeled is most important.
Here's a proposal, we'll quit calling them RPGs. Would that satisfy you? I am inventing a new genre called Grundleshank. Grundleshank games, or GSGs for short, include such memorable titles as Chrono Trigger, Oblivion, Fallout, all the FFs, all the DQs, Might and Magic, Ultima, and all the other games that most sane people like to call RPGs. The defining quality of a GSG is that it attracts the same sort of crowd, much like shooters attract shooter fans, and that it is labeled as such by mass media and its fans.
Of course this brings up the question of whether Oblivion has too much grundle or Ultima doesn't have enough shank, but that is a discussion for another 13 page thread.
Shooters come from a tradition of shooting, using guns. Team Fortress two uses a mouse. Time Crisis uses a gun. Time Crisis is a shooter and Team Fortress two is more like a hack n slash, since the primary element is mowing through enemies.
Posts
Oh god, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!?
What are the core elements that define the RPG as opposed to any other game genre? To answer that, I'd say that it's important to start with tabletop RPGs, which we all agree are the ancestor of the modern computer-based RPGs. In the tabletop format, you have some number of players (presumably more than one, but perhaps a solitaire variant is possible), each of whom controls one or more characters in the game world. Hence the "role playing". They assume the role of whatever characters they control. Naturally, the motivations, needs, and desires of these characters are going to intersect, and when those drives oppose one another you wind up with a conflict. When you have a conflict between characters, you run into what I call the "cowboys and indians problem".
Imagine that two boys are playing "cowboys and indians". One is pretending to be a cowboy, and the other an indian. Since these two groups are perpetually trying to kill one another, the cowboy boy pantomimes firing a revolver at the indian boy and yells "Pow! You're dead!" The indian boy retorts "Nuh-uh! You missed!" He then pantomimes firing an arrow from a bow at the cowboy boy and yells "Thwip! You're dead!" The cowboy boy says, "Nuh-uh! You missed!" Thus the problem: Who wins? Presumably someone has to get hit and die, but whom?
Role-playing game systems solve this problem by providing an impartial mediator between the two conflicting sides. The virtual conflict is resolved through how well the two sides perform in some abstraction of the conflict. It can be as simple as taking turns trying to roll a six on a six-sided die (a potential solution to the situation above), or as complicated as trying to reduce a hit-point count to 0 with an array of potential actions, each with their own rules and mechanics. Naturally, not all conflicts have to be physical. It's rarer, but one can also solve social conflicts through the mechanical mediator. When two characters are trying to convince the king to aid their respective nations, which negotiator will he favor?
This reliance on an acknowledged decision-making system in cases on conflict is what defines role-playing games as a genre, I feel. In almost any game commonly acknowledged as an RPG, you'll see at least one gameplay element involving a point where an action's effect is reported in terms of its result in the underlying mechanics. Most often this takes the form of a damage report after an attack (but not always). The important thing is that the abstraction is immediately apparent to the player. When you attack an enemy in Neverwinter Nights, you're informed of what you rolled for your attack, which bonuses were applied, and whether the roll beat the enemy's Armor Class. If the enemy is injured, you're informed of exactly how many health points they lost. In a more action-oriented game (let's say Left 4 Dead), the abstraction is buried much deeper. You don't know how much health any one Infected has. You don't know exactly what the value of your own footspeed is, or how much damage the guns put out per shot unless you dig into the console and go looking for weapon damage values. When you shoot a zombie, some blood appears on them but you aren't given the number that represents how much damage they took. In an RPG, things like that would be front and center.
This rule for determining what is and what isn't an RPG has an implication that's consistent with what we've seen in computer RPGs these days: no actual "role-playing" is required, only the explicit abstraction of some hypthetical conflict into a mechanical set of rules. One could argue that they can't be "role-playing games" if there isn't any role-playing being done, but so far as I'm concerned that's semantic nitpicking. They grew out of "true" role-playing games, and the name is still more descriptive of the genre than anything else that's been proposed.
Of course, it would be a mistake to think of this distinction as a hard and fast rule, where any game that qualifies, no matter how tangentially, is an RPG, or any game that fails to meet every requirement can't be. Genres run across a continuum, which is why we have hybrid genres, and games that are described as "Genre X, with elements of Genre Y".
A significant problem with this formulation is that a lot of board games, like Settlers of Catan or Monopoly or Life, become RPGs. I'm not sure how to handle that problem yet.
You fool! You'll kill us all!
Did we play the same Mass Effect? The bulk of the time I spent playing the game involved either fighting and gaining XP (and then levels/skills/etc), or talking to people with anywhere between 3 and 6 options for each line of dialogue. You could play out your character in a large number of ways.
The flaws in ME (despite my love of the game) come from the almost total lack of consequences for your "moral" choices made throughout the game.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Well, I am talking about ports/multiplatform.
Also, you have stuff like Mass Effect and Kotor, which are console based games ported to the PC, in just the same manner.
While life has different stages and different story paths, changing stages isn't the same as leveling up.
It looks the same color as the word "Nintendo." Both are red.
Color perception is subjective. Your orange is my red.
More at 11.
Dude, what if colors were all, like... different for each of us man? What if you saw red as green, but because since all you know is like... that's what red is, you didn't know any different. We could all be seeing totally different things, man. Wicked heavy.
I mean, if there was some kind of crazy revelation in here, and everyone realised that "RPG" doesn't apply to half the games that it used to apply to, the games don't become any less fun as a result.
Maybe the OP just likes seeing 12 pages of argument.
I'm talking about gradients in perception. Any one person see's a given gradient differently.
It can change depending on the colors next to it as well.
There's no right answer.
And I'm serious.
Yeah, but it's red. Quite quite red.
Look!
See. It all makes sense now.
Now could you please infract every fucker replying to the orange/red thing too? God!
That is a pretty interesting viewpoint. What I would like to remark on is that the progression from cowboys to indians to actual roleplaying games is important and probably is a good way to define the genre, but I do not think this is necessarily so. There are, for example, still examples of freeform roleplaying taking place where there are pretty much no rules. I would hesitate to say that these are not roleplaying games, I would prefer to say that rules are created to aid roleplaying rather than define it.
A roleplaying game without clear rules may not be a very good roleplaying game, but that is different from saying that the definition does not apply to it.
Where is that picard hand on head jpeg when you need it?
I wanted to thank all participants, especially Couscous and Khavall. You've all (mostly :P ) raised interesting and important points that made me re-evaluate my opinions. Please excuse me if I came off as overzealous, I do have this tendency.
So, part two, based on my thoughts after reading the discussion.
The name of a genre should describe the gameplay as accurately as possible and convenient. The core gameplay element.
Allow me to repeat:
In strategy games you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In racing games you need to race to win.
In shooters you have to shoot things to win.
In platformers you have to maneuver platforms to win.
In beat'em'ups you have to beat them up to win.
Simple and elegant. I agree that there are misnomers, like the adventure genre mentioned by Couscous, but I wanted to focus on RPG.
Then why is RPG such a difficult term? The name implies, after all, that you simply have to role-play to win.
What is role playing in general?
Basing on the simple example of an actor playing a role, we can easily say that playing a role means acting according to your character.
Khavall suggests that we have to employ a definition specific to the discussed subject, however.
I agree. After all you play a role of Master Chief in Halo, yet it is a shooter. You play a role of Garret the Master Thief in Thief, yet it is a sneaker. In Race Driver: GRID you play the role of a race driver, yet it is a racing game. Why? Because the CORE GAMEPLAY element in those games is, respectively, shooting, sneaking and racing.
Why isn't Diablo a role-playing game? Because the only role you can assume in this game is that of a fighter (no matter the tools he employs to fight, be it melee, bows or magic), the only thing you can do in this game is fight (traditionally, we call such games hack'n'slash). You have to FIGHT to win the game.
Why isn't Oblivion a role-playing game? Because -despite the fact that you can assume various roles in it, you can be a diplomat or a thief- the vast majority of the gameplay is still combat (even the thieves' guild quest involve mainly combat, especially in the latter part of the questline). You have to FIGHT to win the game. There probably are situations where combat is possible but not necessary- but it's the majority of the gameplay that describes the game, not separate situations.
Why aren't most JRPGs role-playing games? Because, despite the fact that you take part in a story (and it can be a very good story), the only part of the game that actually requires player input (also known as gameplay) is COMBAT- therefore COMBAT is the core gameplay element. You have to FIGHT to win the game.
Why is Fallout a role-playing game? Hmmmm...
Is it a shooter? No. A vast majority of situations can be handled without combat. Is it a diplomacy game? No- despite many possible diplomatic options, you can solve most situations through properly applied violence. Is it a sneaker? No, there are a few sneaky missions but they're neither prominent nor required to win.
So what do you have to do to win Fallout? You have to PLAY YOUR ROLE. YOU HAVE TO ACT ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF YOUR CHARACTER(S). Same for Arcanum. Same for Planescape:Torment.
If there were a more specific way to describe the gameplay, it would define the genre. Of course, you could call it a fighting/sneaking/diplomacy game, but that would only be true if ALL of those elements AT ONCE were required to win.
If you are forced into a role and you don't get to change it (Halo, Thief), it's the role that defines the genre of the game. If you get choice- it is a role-playing game. If you get multiple choices but only one possile outcome- then it is a very poorly done role-playing game.
Somebody mentioned RPGs without stats. I gave it some thought and yes- it is possible. If role-playing means "acting accordingly to the nature of your character(s) we should take a closer look at what can define that nature.
-Physical attributes
-Personality
-Likes and dislikes
-Moral values
-Skills
-Past deeds
As you can see, at least one of them (past deeds) can be defined without stats. My dream RPG would employ all those elements for both the PC and NPCs (in fact, I'm preparing a detailed devplan for such a game and I'm planning to make it).
I think this is all I have to say for now. I'm still eager for discussion, of course.
In strategy games you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In racing games you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In shooters you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In platformers you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
In beat'em'ups you have to employ strategic thinking skills to win.
You don't have to act your role in Fallout. It's quite the opposite. You can switch sides all the time and do whatever you want. That's not playing a role.
I would say RPG is defined by the ability to pour over stats, and the ability to change statistical factors of which the most common is via a "level up."
How about you stop trying to change the definition of RPG and maybe call what you're trying to define Role-Playing Game? So you can still say that while jRPGs are RPGs, Fallout is a true Role-Playing Game.
YES! (although it wouldn't hurt if you provided a bit more specific examples).
Also:
In Halo you play a role.
In Thief you play a role.
In Race Driver you play a role.
In Civilization you play a role.
That's why it is the CORE GAMEPLAY element that matters. Sometimes this is a bit vague, but surely, if COMBAT is the only gameplay element, it leaves no place for discussion. For example: if the focus is on tactical combat played in turns (Incubation), we call it a turn-based tactical strategy.
Just because you're constantly changing your role (I don't see why would you), it doesn't mean you're not playing the role that you've currently assumed. The role is there, and it is the only thing that defines the gameplay. Combat isn't. Diplomacy isn't. Sneaking isn't. Strategic thinking- maybe, but it's much less important than any of the previous three you've decided to choose.
I'll employ the same trick that you did: but in Civilization IV you can pour over stats and you get the ability to change statistical factors of which the most common is via a "level up."
You can role play in fallout, or you can not. If you ignore the story and just build a character to win fights, you're not role playing. Does the game stop being an rpg then? Does it become a 'turn based combat simulation'? A tactical war-game? These things do exist, you know.
You could just as easily say 'well then I'm just playing a character who only cares about fighting'. But the core gameplay is still not about 'role playing' - it's about fighting.
edit:: also, your definition seems to basically mean 'different methods of solving problems == role playing'. This is also not particularly good.
And this, my friend, is where you didn't read my post.
In such situation, fighting isn't the core gameplay element of the game- it is simply the one you've chosen. If it was the only thing possible, then yes- it would make the game a 'turn based combat simulation' or a 'tactical war-game'.
But if you've got choice, that element doesn't define the genre, and it's role-playing that does. If you've built a fighter-diplomat PC then you'll probably role-play a figher-diplomat. If you've built a fighter and you're role-playing a diplomat, then you lose. (and if you don't lose, then the game is badly designed).
Having multiple options in what to do does not make 'role playing' a gameplay element. Because 'role playing' is not gameplay.
You seem to be equating role playing and sandbox games. Is Spore a role playing game? How about Black and White? Populous?
I role played in GTA 4 - I always selected the options to let people live. It fit with my version of Niko.
Is GTA 4 a role playing game?
I consider CivIV a strategy RPG.
I don't find it unreasonable to say that it is. It certainly is more of a roleplaying game than, say, diablo.
An RPG as it is currently is a game in which the characters attributes and skills, along with all modifiers, are the main factor in the games progression.
It encompasses all we've seen in what people think of RPGs. Is Oblivion an RPG? Yes. If a level 50 with 0 mace skill uses a mace they buy from some local vendor against some big enemy, they will have a much harder time, if they will even be able to actually win the fight than someone with 100 mace skill using super-daedric mace. While player skill is a contributing factor, the main factor is the character. Do we count the players ability to create a character as "player skill" and chalk it all up to player skill? No.
Now, does this go against the "role-playing" part of RPGs? Eh. Not really, since it's what RPGs are. So for games, "role-playing game" means "character-focused game".
Now, maybe there's an argument for what RPGs should be, which has something to do with dialogue focus, choice having an impact on the world, whatever you want it to be. The problem is that that's a dead-end discussion consisting of "Well but I like choice more!" and "Well in x game y happens so z must be true!"
"What is an RPG" though? It's a game where the focus of the mechanics of the games is the Characters skills, not the Players.
RPG is a genre as defined by the canon of the genre, not a collection of words.
So far I haven't been wrong.
The average colour sampled value from that photo is roughly e00406. All that is left is to look up the nearest named neighbour in a colour table. It's a shame it isn't so simple to define rpgs.
This is the most important thing. "Role playing game" is just a couple of broadly defined words.
Nowadays every game contains an element of every other game, and yet they still fit into specific genres. Why? Because the companies and the public say so, and there's no need to argue otherwise.
It's as was said just a few posts earlier. Modern racing games involve strategy, twitch action, third person or first person, sometimes a storyline with branching objectives, money management, vehicle stats, equipment upgrades. Most good RPGs involve strategy, twitch action (occasionally even in turn-based), third person or first person, etc. etc. Even some timed racing to complete an objective.
The genre is determined by the quantity of overlapping elements. If the stats are more prominent/important, then it's probably RPG or strategy, but not necessarily. Again, what it gets labeled is most important.
Here's a proposal, we'll quit calling them RPGs. Would that satisfy you? I am inventing a new genre called Grundleshank. Grundleshank games, or GSGs for short, include such memorable titles as Chrono Trigger, Oblivion, Fallout, all the FFs, all the DQs, Might and Magic, Ultima, and all the other games that most sane people like to call RPGs. The defining quality of a GSG is that it attracts the same sort of crowd, much like shooters attract shooter fans, and that it is labeled as such by mass media and its fans.
Of course this brings up the question of whether Oblivion has too much grundle or Ultima doesn't have enough shank, but that is a discussion for another 13 page thread.
Look, do I have to invent new words for every genre?