Classifying RPGs

[psivamp]

The term 'RPG' has been stripped of all meaning it seems to me. I realize that pretty much all games have you playing a role and hence in some sense are "role-playing games," but, ignoring that bit of quibbling, the term 'RPG' is now applied to so many different styles of game as to have lost any meaning at all.

Personally, I'd like to see the term only applied to games with a freedom of choice and in-depth character interaction that changes based on how you play. In my opinion, Diablo is not an RPG. Demon's Souls, also not an RPG. I'm not saying they're bad games, they just don't fit into the RPG category as I see it. Am I alone in this view? Does everyone else think that upgradable stats means RPG? In that case, inFamous is an RPG -- actually inFamous fits better than Diablo or Demon's Souls, since your actions do actually effect the outcome of the game. Heck, on my more cynical days, I consider JRPGs not to be actual RPGs, because you're stuck on rails and you do exactly as you're told. But I digress.

Should the RPG classification be tightened down to games more along the lines of Baldur's Gate (not Dark Alliance series), Dragon Age, Mass Effect?

 

[Yureina]

There are "Western RPG's" and "JRPG's" as classifications out there. I am afraid I don't know enough about some of the games you have mentioned (Yes, I have never played Diablo) to really say how those would fit. Perhaps just "kill em all" kinds of games?

 

[Seldon2639]

The term 'RPG' has been stripped of all meaning it seems to me. I realize that pretty much all games have you playing a role and hence in some sense are "role-playing games," but, ignoring that bit of quibbling, the term 'RPG' is now applied to so many different styles of game as to have lost any meaning at all.

Personally, I'd like to see the term only applied to games with a freedom of choice and in-depth character interaction that changes based on how you play. In my opinion, Diablo is not an RPG. Demon's Souls, also not an RPG. I'm not saying they're bad games, they just don't fit into the RPG category as I see it. Am I alone in this view? Does everyone else think that upgradable stats means RPG? In that case, inFamous is an RPG -- actually inFamous fits better than Diablo or Demon's Souls, since your actions do actually effect the outcome of the game. Heck, on my more cynical days, I consider JRPGs not to be actual RPGs, because you're stuck on rails and you do exactly as you're told. But I digress.

Should the RPG classification be tightened down to games more along the lines of Baldur's Gate (not Dark Alliance series), Dragon Age, Mass Effect?

It's cute you think that Baldur's Gate, DA:O, or Mass Effect have "freedom of choice and in-depth character interaction that changes based on how you play". It's like someone saying that there's freedom of choice in a JRPG, because you can choose exactly how quickly you go through the game.

No Bioware RPG provides any depth of character interaction, nor any changes to the core game based on how you play. Yes, different people may die, but due to the lack of consistency, I can be a total dick on one planet, and a heavenly saint on the next, and no one will bat an eye. I can be a jerk to Tali, then nice, and still seduce her. DA:O does thing moderately differently, but the fact that I can get to max affection even if I say totally dick things by giving them the right gift breaks the system.

The issue is that you're not really playing a "role" in the sense of "I have a character with a set of personality traits and motivations", you're playing an avatar, a stand-in you can have do whatever you like. Any character growth or development on the part of the main character is entirely of the player's volition, rather than the game's. It's like having to write my own story, if I want the MC to be anything but "dude who does stuff I want him to do".

I think the RPG designation should be held to games with actual characterization, character arcs, character development. But, since that's never gonna happen, the RPG is a catch-all for any game with stat systems, essentially.

Addendum:

Yeah, go back and really think about the plots of DA:O or Mass Effect (or even KOTOR). No matter who you save, who you alienate, who you decide to bump intergalactic uglies with, you're still going through the same plot. I can't choose to simply take my ship and say "screw you" to the galaxy, no matter "who" I am, I'm still going to hunt Saren down across a set number of planets and missions, and eventually stop him. I'm going to showdown with Darth Malak aboard the Star Forge, and face Darth Treya on Machior IV (I don't recall the planet name). Dark side or light, paragon or renegade, nice guy or jerkass, I'm still doing the same plot.

Sure, the rails are more well-hidden, but they're still rails

 

[psivamp]

It's cute you think that Baldur's Gate, DA:O, or Mass Effect have "freedom of choice and in-depth character interaction that changes based on how you play". It's like someone saying that there's freedom of choice in a JRPG, because you can choose exactly how quickly you go through the game.

No Bioware RPG provides any depth of character interaction, nor any changes to the core game based on how you play. Yes, different people may die, but due to the lack of consistency, I can be a total dick on one planet, and a heavenly saint on the next, and no one will bat an eye. I can be a jerk to Tali, then nice, and still seduce her. DA:O does thing moderately differently, but the fact that I can get to max affection even if I say totally dick things by giving them the right gift breaks the system.

Choice is naturally limited by the game being a medium for a story. At least in Black Isle/BioWare titles, you get to make a choice other than what you wear, honestly the original Fallout titles rule, and so does Planescape: Torment. In every JRPG I've played the only choices you get are during fights and whether or not to power-level on the way to Castle Doom.

I haven't played Mass Effect and had a fairly low opinion of DA:O, personally. In the Black Isle titles, you interacted with party members and your choices there could alienate them and cause them to leave your party entirely.

The issue is that you're not really playing a "role" in the sense of "I have a character with a set of personality traits and motivations", you're playing an avatar, a stand-in you can have do whatever you like. Any character growth or development on the part of the main character is entirely of the player's volition, rather than the game's. It's like having to write my own story, if I want the MC to be anything but "dude who does stuff I want him to do".

I think the RPG designation should be held to games with actual characterization, character arcs, character development. But, since that's never gonna happen, the RPG is a catch-all for any game with stat systems, essentially.

I'd love to be able to play an RPG in the pen-and-paper sense where my character can be whatever I want them to be and do whatever I decide they should do, interact with their environment and have an adaptable story, but it's too much work for developers -- that and the problem of creating actual AI would pretty much have to be solved. Until then, I'll settle for what I can get.

 

[ShakesZX]

I think the RPG designation should be held to games with actual characterization, character arcs, character development. But, since that's never gonna happen, the RPG is a catch-all for any game with stat systems, essentially.

That is all the term RPG means to any non-table-top game. Stat systems and leveling up are the only way to really measure up a "role" on any sort of game. And even then, they only have "RPG Elements". Tabletop gaming is the only form of gaming where you personally can craft a role, modify behaviors, etc., etc. I am not trying to bash RPGs, they are my favorite games, but in relation to all other games, there is no true "Role playing" video game.

 

[Seldon2639]

Choice is naturally limited by the game being a medium for a story. At least in Black Isle/BioWare titles, you get to make a choice other than what you wear, honestly the original Fallout titles rule, and so does Planescape: Torment. In every JRPG I've played the only choices you get are during fights and whether or not to power-level on the way to Castle Doom.

I haven't played Mass Effect and had a fairly low opinion of DA:O, personally. In the Black Isle titles, you interacted with party members and your choices there could alienate them and cause them to leave your party entirely.

The same is true of DA:O. The issue I take is twofold. First, the inherent (and necessary) lack of character of the player character; the fact that he can never be given a true character arc or development, and is basically just "whatever the player wanted to do that day". The lack of immersion of "this isn't a real person, this is just a face with a gun", really bugs me.

The second issue is that you're still ham-fistedly pushed along a linear storyline. That's fine, but let's call a spade a spade. No matter how much lip-service is given to moral choice and exploration, you're still going through the same plotline, the same areas, fighting the same monsters. The only thing that changes is the final ending, and occasionally how the characters react to you (even that is usually shallow). Without some sense of character consistency, it always feels like I'm just playing a game, rather than being part of a story.

I'd love to be able to play an RPG in the pen-and-paper sense where my character can be whatever I want them to be and do whatever I decide they should do, interact with their environment and have an adaptable story, but it's too much work for developers -- that and the problem of creating actual AI would pretty much have to be solved. Until then, I'll settle for what I can get.

Fair enough. Though, we also have (I think) different styles of how we like our pen-and-paper RPGs. I much prefer the games and GMs which force you to play a consistent character. It's not the adaptability of the story I miss, it's the part where I can feel like the character I'm playing and seeing is legitimately a being unto himself.

 

[Seldon2639]

I think the RPG designation should be held to games with actual characterization, character arcs, character development. But, since that's never gonna happen, the RPG is a catch-all for any game with stat systems, essentially.

That is all the term RPG means to any non-table-top game. Stat systems and leveling up are the only way to really measure up a "role" on any sort of game. And even then, they only have "RPG Elements". Tabletop gaming is the only form of gaming where you personally can craft a role, modify behaviors, etc., etc. I am not trying to bash RPGs, they are my favorite games, but in relation to all other games, there is no true "Role playing" video game.

Precisely. Games are fundamentally narratives. They can't tell stories the same way that a person running a table-top game can. The difference between a western and J RPG is in how much effort they put into hiding what is fundamentally a train-track of story.

 

[psivamp]

I'd love to be able to play an RPG in the pen-and-paper sense where my character can be whatever I want them to be and do whatever I decide they should do, interact with their environment and have an adaptable story, but it's too much work for developers -- that and the problem of creating actual AI would pretty much have to be solved. Until then, I'll settle for what I can get.

Fair enough. Though, we also have (I think) different styles of how we like our pen-and-paper RPGs. I much prefer the games and GMs which force you to play a consistent character. It's not the adaptability of the story I miss, it's the part where I can feel like the character I'm playing and seeing is legitimately a being unto himself.

Actually, I like to play a consistent character. The adaptability comes in to how problems can be solved. I remember a session where we ascended a tower and the DM had planned to have us fight our way back out, but we instead used feather-fall to BASE jump out the windows. In a campaign where an artifact necessary to a god's incarnation in the world needed to be destroyed in some absurdly difficult way, the guy carrying it drew the Poverty card from a Deck of Many Things and all of his possessions turned to dust - including the artifact - end of story arc. We played with characters of disparate alignments who had ulterior motives for joining the group and would hang back in combat despite being more capable because they were selfish characters. It's an experience I would like to repeat, but finding the people necessary is exceedingly difficult.

 

[xHipaboo420x]

To me, there are two types of Role-Playing Games.

There are those that force you into a character, and that make you act out a story based on his or her actions relative to their personality. Games like Planescape: Torment, the Final Fantasy series, etc. fit this mould.

Opposed to this are games which allow you to install yourself into the world and, within certain parameters, act as you would prefer to act, as seen in games like Knights Of The Old Republic, Deus Ex, and Dragon Age: Origins.

Both methods allow you to 'play a role' but take different approaches, and usually yield different results.

 

[Seldon2639]

Actually, I like to play a consistent character. The adaptability comes in to how problems can be solved. I remember a session where we ascended a tower and the DM had planned to have us fight our way back out, but we instead used feather-fall to BASE jump out the windows. In a campaign where an artifact necessary to a god's incarnation in the world needed to be destroyed in some absurdly difficult way, the guy carrying it drew the Poverty card from a Deck of Many Things and all of his possessions turned to dust - including the artifact - end of story arc. We played with characters of disparate alignments who had ulterior motives for joining the group and would hang back in combat despite being more capable because they were selfish characters. It's an experience I would like to repeat, but finding the people necessary is exceedingly difficult.

I think everyone has experiences like that. I've usually played in games with a limit on the ability of players to be anything south of (essentially) lawful neutral or neutral good. That said, the most fun is coming up with awesome solutions to problems. I remember a spycraft game where we were going through a building filled with terrorist supervillains (kind of like Metal Gear Solid), and got to the bioweapons expert's room. He had a group of civilians behind a glass wall, and the challenge was to find which of three eggs was not filled with a deadly toxin. If we found the right egg, he'd let them go, taunting us that we wouldn't find the clean egg. My partner (we were the only two going through that part of the building) picks up a random egg, injects it with the anti-toxin from a medkit, and slams it against the glass partition, saying "clean".

Another really good one was in a Seventh Sea game where we and the Big Bad both had compasses which pointed toward each other and which (when combined) would unlock the ability to get the Macguffin. The Big Bad led us to an island, and as we got off the boat, one of the players asked to put gunpowder on the bottom of our compass. The GM didn't even think about it, and let him. After we get captured, and the Big Bad is uniting the compasses, the player reminded the GM about the gunpowder, and the Big Bad blew up.

 

[veloper]

The term 'RPG' has been stripped of all meaning it seems to me. I realize that pretty much all games have you playing a role and hence in some sense are "role-playing games," but, ignoring that bit of quibbling, the term 'RPG' is now applied to so many different styles of game as to have lost any meaning at all.

Personally, I'd like to see the term only applied to games with a freedom of choice and in-depth character interaction that changes based on how you play. In my opinion, Diablo is not an RPG.

Some guy somewhere on these boards coined the term Third Person Looter for diablo + clones. Love that. Labeling them as TPL ever since.

Demon's Souls, also not an RPG. I'm not saying they're bad games, they just don't fit into the RPG category as I see it. Am I alone in this view? Does everyone else think that upgradable stats means RPG? In that case, inFamous is an RPG -- actually inFamous fits better than Diablo or Demon's Souls, since your actions do actually effect the outcome of the game. Heck, on my more cynical days, I consider JRPGs not to be actual RPGs, because you're stuck on rails and you do exactly as you're told. But I digress.

Should the RPG classification be tightened down to games more along the lines of Baldur's Gate (not Dark Alliance series), Dragon Age, Mass Effect?

TBWP RPG (Baldur, DA)
roleplaying shooter (ME)

The true and original cRPGs are "roguelikes", because the earliest crpgs were just randomly generated dungeons and turn-based combat, like Rogue.

 

[psivamp]

The true and original cRPGs are "roguelikes", because the earliest crpgs were just randomly generated dungeons and turn-based combat, like Rogue.

Ah, I forgot about them... I played countless hours of ADOM.

 

[DustyDrB]

To me, there are two types of Role-Playing Games.

There are those that force you into a character, and that make you act out a story based on his or her actions relative to their personality. Games like Planescape: Torment, the Final Fantasy series, etc. fit this mould.

Opposed to this are games which allow you to install yourself into the world and, within certain parameters, act as you would prefer to act, as seen in games like Knights Of The Old Republic, Deus Ex, and Dragon Age: Origins.

Both methods allow you to 'play a role' but take different approaches, and usually yield different results.

People seem to overlook this often. It's a great point, though. I think back to when I was a kid and would play in my backyard. Sometimes I would create my own story and the hero was me (or at least how I saw myself). Other times, I would pretend to be James Bond or Han Solo and try to act like they did. Both are roleplaying.

In gaming, I tend to favor the latter style: me trying to fit the role of a character who is already developed. It leads to a less open ended story, but a more believable one. There are also games like Mass Effect which blend the two styles.