Arr Pee Gee

[Altorin]

I for one am fine with calling anything that falls into any of those categories RPGs, as long as there is some semblance of character development (levels, ability points that improve from use or experience, etc), and a storytelling component. Giving a game slight perks, or access to different weapons doesn't make it an RPG. It has to be a development of the character from the beginning as a 90lb weakling until the end when they become the Hulkamania. Modern Warfare 2 is NOT an RPG. Bioshock, honestly, is just on the edge. Mass Effect IS an RPG.

Now, you can apply additional labels if you want, but what defines an RPG, to me (and that's the crux of the problem, but I digress), is incremental character improvement. It's the one thread that ties them all together. Without that, you're just playing an action game, a shooter, a puzzle game.

 

[Korten12]

Of course, I'd rather never play another video game again than deal with the manmade Hell of PC gaming.

This site has a very high number of PC fanboys. I suggest equipping your Flame Resistant Shield +1.

What makes an RPG- choice. And NO, I do not mean if your choice affects the story, though that counts, too. I mean if you can decide how your character evolves throughout the course of the game (whether by skill points, new weapons and armor, making story-based decisions) then it is an RPG.

To this regard, EVERY game like Diablo, every Final fantasy (though I haven't played 13, so I dunno about that one), every game made by Blizzard, BioWare, Black Isle, Obsidian, etc, etc. They can ALL be called RPGs.

There. I think that's as good a definition as we're going to get. Disagree if you want, but that will forever be MY definition of an RPG.

EDIT- I just realised that also makes games like Devil May Cry RPGs. I accept that. In a way, they kinda are. You "level up" by getting orbs throughout the game, your constantly changing weapons, and your deciding what skills you level up with your orbs. I'm still satisfied with my definition of an RPG.

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT! RPGS =/= choice effecting story games...

 

[Grey_Focks]

Of course, I'd rather never play another video game again than deal with the manmade Hell of PC gaming.

This site has a very high number of PC fanboys. I suggest equipping your Flame Resistant Shield +1.

What makes an RPG- choice. And NO, I do not mean if your choice affects the story, though that counts, too. I mean if you can decide how your character evolves throughout the course of the game (whether by skill points, new weapons and armor, making story-based decisions) then it is an RPG.

To this regard, EVERY game like Diablo, every Final fantasy (though I haven't played 13, so I dunno about that one), every game made by Blizzard, BioWare, Black Isle, Obsidian, etc, etc. They can ALL be called RPGs.

There. I think that's as good a definition as we're going to get. Disagree if you want, but that will forever be MY definition of an RPG.

EDIT- I just realised that also makes games like Devil May Cry RPGs. I accept that. In a way, they kinda are. You "level up" by getting orbs throughout the game, your constantly changing weapons, and your deciding what skills you level up with your orbs. I'm still satisfied with my definition of an RPG.

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT! RPGS =/= choice effecting story games...

Someone quoting one of my posts...to agree with me?! This hasn't happened in ages. I...I'm so happy.

But yea, people saying only games where you have control over the story are the only "real" RPGs need to widen their perspective. Final fantasy (#) is just as much of an RPG as Mass Effect.

And just to give a bit of perspective, I actually detest most JRPGs, especially the FF series. Doesn't mean I'm going to say something dumb like "they aren't REAL RPGs!"

 

[Namewithheld]

Who cares what they're called just so long as they're good.

 

[TetsuoKaneda]

Of course, I'd rather never play another video game again than deal with the manmade Hell of PC gaming.

This site has a very high number of PC fanboys. I suggest equipping your Flame Resistant Shield +1.

Hey, we're outside of a ZP comments section. Stranger things have happened than PC gamers not flaming someone.

FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT! RPGS =/= choice effecting story games...

Not quite. Rather they do equal that, but are not exclusively that. It's more like "RPGs ~=", or "RPGs =_" (stupid math equations and post format not allowing me to use them properly...)

Personally, I take issue with the definition to begin with, if only because that means damn near every game coming out is an RPG. Just because they allow you to upgrade and change your weapons does not an RPG make. Or just because they have loads of items and skills, but you're pretty much a blank aside from that. I kind of feel like to distinguish "RPG" from "RPG elements", there needs to be more of an investment to something in there...story, characters...something. Some je ne sais quois.

I think FF is an RPG, but Diablo is where I get lost. Maybe the difference is that I played something that seemed to hard-line me into solving all my problems with smacking things around and not allowing me much freedom to do what I wished. Oh, and that my Amazon (again, not really an evolution of character so much as a fenced path) found tons of Paladin equipment, so I really didn't get to advance that.

My standards are tighter than a nun during a discussion on when to hold a black mass, but my issue and argument are my opinion based on my experiences as a roleplaying gamer. I would hope I'd have dissenters, as otherwise it gets boring and freaky that there are people so much like me.

 

[erethizon]

I would say all it means to be a role playing game these days is to have character advancement. If a character can gain levels, skills, etc. then it can be called an RPG. If the only improvement the character ever gets is better items (e.g. new weapons or power-ups) then it cannot be called a RPG. Final Fantasy and Deus Ex both fall into the RPG category because they both follow this rule. Thief and Half-Life are not RPG's because your only improvement is the stuff you find. The character you start the game with is identical to the character you end the game with (only his stuff changes). In a RPG the character himself is fundamentally improved even if you took his stuff away.

 

[sunpop]

The restrictive nature that gaming has taken on is the reason I play D&D with the rule of awesome in effect. I always think of odd but fun ways to solve a problem but in a video game you can't do whatever you want. It's usually 3 options for example: You need to get into the dungeon to free a prisoner you can
1. Fight your way in
2. Negotiate/bribe the guards
3. Sneak in another way

In D&D you can combine abilities people have to blow a hole in the ceiling causing it to collapse and crush a guard while someone else sneaks in a back door smuggling out the prisoner while someone else robs the armory of anything useful.

 

[camazotz]

Maybe games could qualify as "true" RPGs if they achieve a level of immersion that satisfies some minimum requirement: the ability to make you feel like you're the protagonist, and that you are sufficiently fooled through suspension of belief that you have choice in how you conduct yourself or resolve the story at hand (such that even if you don't have a lot of choices, the game nonetheless makes you think you do, or at least feel that the path(s) available to you are the most sensible).

I feel this would qualify games like Mass Effect, most of the Final Fantasy series, Fallout series and others as RPGs. Games that failed this test would include Diablo (where your only possible solution is extermination of the enemy) and its like, and possibly even Borderlands (which does grant you freedom of action but fails at story immersion since your protagonist remains about as developed as your average FPS "man behind the gun"...or woman if you're playing Lilith). I'm kind of torn on Borderlands, though. I do feel it meets the requirements of immersion and freedom of action for the most part....it just does little to convey sense of purpose (yeah, outside of finding the vault) to your character.

I do not think an RPG should be defined by leveling/advancement/loot acquisition. These are all features that can be in an RPG, yes, but they are not required. You can have any or all of these features in games that have no role-based immersion-driven processes.

Okay, just my definition to add to the pile of pennies.

 

[Borntolose]

Maurice sounds like a pretty good game. I don't really care how the games are classified as long as they're fun.

 

[Erick.S]

As far as names go, MMOG should be replaces with MMEG, and stand for Massively Multiplayer Endless Grindfests.

That should at least give an early warning to unsuspecting players (and draw in the stat-crunching, loot hoarding addicts).

 

[Keava]

I rather reserve the term RPG for games, where the actual RolePlaying matters.

In titles like Diablo or Torchlight, those were just sets of skills and no impact on the Storytelling part, it didn't matter what you do as long as smash things, the plot was only a background and excuse to go further down, so personaly no matter how i enjoyed it, i will never accept Diablo as a classic RPG.

When it comes to productions like Baldurs Gate, Planescape, Fallout, TES, ME and such likes, there is much bigger focus on actual story and how your character behaves in it, you actually have at least minimal impact on the whole the plot is driven by how you approach the story. Sure it is still far far away from traditional Pen and Paper experience, but at least offers something more than just stats.

Character advancement is the least important part of the Roleplaying for me, and even most of my PnP games rarely went above starting levels (in DnD campaigns i think my highest ever was 10th level). Story focus is what makes it or breaks it for me.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

I think it would be easier to rate the intensity of gameplay elements rather than classify things by genre.

Is there a character growth, does this growth involve discrete level progression, a skill based leveling system, stat progression, or a combination? Is there inventory management, if so are there numerical weight limits, tetris style limits, or both? Are there exploration elements beyond completion of the main story? Is there random loot and if so how does the game keep the first "dungeon" from being exactly like that last dungeon. Do your choices affect gameplay beyond which weapons you are best at using? Example, in Baldurs Gate your class determined how you handled combat and your companions and dialog choices changed a lot of the story, or at least unlocked different information between play throughs.

For some examples from NES Mega Man has has character growth because end game mega man has the powers of 8 robots. There is some exploration because the player has to figure out the best order in which to do the bosses. In Zelda your character growth is tied to story progression(weapons, gear, hearts) and exploration can increase the progression level after certain story points are completed. In Final Fantasy 1 the player has a choice of classes each with numeric stats, each party member gains levels and stat numbers but the player doesn't make any choices about how to assign those stats. The main player choices come in which gear to buy first to optimize story progression.

 

[veloper]

Is it Ambrose Bierce time?

The best two categories for games are action game and strategy game. Not much use for pinning down what an RPG is but you can split RPGs into two groups.

1. Action games with a good excuse for being bad action games.
2. Strategy games with a good excuse for being sucky, broken strategy games.

These two definitions cover pretty much all video games that feel the need to call themselves RPGs.

This made me smile.
Fans of the genre will put up with so much more crap than any other gamer it's funny.

 

[Stormkitten]

Okay... so this got me to sign up for an account.

First, cRPGs are not Table-top RPGs, and (currently) we can't expect them to be. So any direct comparison isn't that useful, I think.

I'd split cRPGs into these four categories:

Hack'n'slash: Lightweight story there to support the combat focused gameplay (rather like most FPSs). Emphasises the gear and levelling side to TT RPGs. Diablo, Torchlight etc

Story-driven (fixed character): The persona you play is fixed (either completely or to a limited extent e.g. background). This can give you a stronger place in the narrative for your character, but limits your choices. FF games, Mass Effect (since Shepard is always Earth Alliance Military), Deus Ex

Story-driven (open character): The story is fixed, and linear to an extent, but you can play any character you like. However, the story is the focus of the game, and there will be little to no random exploration. Dragon Age, Planescape

Open-world: Any character can be played, and there is little limit to where you can go in the gameworld. There will be a main plot, but it can be ignored. Morrowind, Fallout 3

 

[veloper]

Okay... so this got me to sign up for an account.

First, cRPGs are not Table-top RPGs, and (currently) we can't expect them to be. So any direct comparison isn't that useful, I think.

I'd split cRPGs into these four categories:

Hack'n'slash: Lightweight story there to support the combat focused gameplay (rather like most FPSs). Emphasises the gear and levelling side to TT RPGs. Diablo, Torchlight etc

Story-driven (fixed character): The persona you play is fixed (either completely or to a limited extent e.g. background). This can give you a stronger place in the narrative for your character, but limits your choices. FF games, Mass Effect (since Shepard is always Earth Alliance Military), Deus Ex

Story-driven (open character): The story is fixed, and linear to an extent, but you can play any character you like. However, the story is the focus of the game, and there will be little to no random exploration. Dragon Age, Planescape

Open-world: Any character can be played, and there is little limit to where you can go in the gameworld. There will be a main plot, but it can be ignored. Morrowind, Fallout 3

Welcome to the Escapist!

I'd put ME2 and FO3 in the same RPshooter genre, along with DX and VTM:B.
Chances are if somebody hates shooting, he or she won't like any of these.

I don't see much value in having seperate genres for fixed pcs and open pcs. It doesn't matter to me aslong as the character isn't a complete git (more an issue of quality).

For Hack&slash it could be useful to separate the TPLs (diablo-clones) from the turn-based dungeoncrawls, such as roguelikes and goldbox games.
Fans of the latter tend to dislike the former.

 

[Arduras]

I suppose RPG is easier to put on a label than:

PDSG -Player Driven Story Game (Dragon Age)

EBFWG - Exploration Based Free World Game (Elder Scrolls, Fallout)

GBA&CG - Guns Blazing Action and Conversation Game (Mass Effect)

RPG just tends to cover anything with the slightest bit of adjustablity.

 

[My1stLuvJak]

How about, "Giant Waste of Time"?

Just kidding. Some classification along those lines would stop me from getting into an 100-hour RPG, though. Why do some RPGs think that more time spent instantly equals better quality game? I hate seeing that on the box, (200+ hr epic RPG)

 

[Dogstile]

Role playing games are something I considerer to be mass effect-y. You can make a character, choose his skills, his equipment. But all that takes a back seat to the story, which gets affected by decisions the player makes.

I mean, if you gain characters trust that affects if they live or die, as do your choices in what they do. If they die in the story they're gone, and won't be in the next game either. Actions branch out and have effects you have no idea that'd happen. Its marvellous. More games should do it.

 

[Hyper-space]

MMO: Grindin'
Wii games: Wagglin'
Bioware games: Talkin'
Bethesda games: Walkin'
DMC and GoW: Hackin' n' Slashin'

 

[Therumancer]

I've said before that I believe Role-Playing Games are simply defined by the fact that things are resolved based on character attributes rather than your own paticular abillities.

Plot, storyline, and other things being more or less irrelevent, because the first RPGs really didn't have these things. The entire appeal being in the very beginning that a bunch of nerds were focusing on one guy attacking another single dude and being able to resolve it entirely by statistics and die rolls. This in comparison to wargames where battles were generally fought unit against unit.

All of the stuff about adding plotlines about why these battles were taking place and so on (which existed in Wargames) came later. Oh, soon thereafter for sure, but still later.