Dark Souls isn't an RPG

[loa]

It's a modern castlevania done right.
Who cares about labels.
They are pretty flawed anyway, what with a whole genre defined by its perspective and the act of shooting or such gems as "action" and what of "role playing" anyway?
You do "role playing" in pretty much every single game that isn't a puzzle game and it is worth noting that this descriptor was born in a time where telling a story in a game and especially cutscenes were very uncommon while pretty much every game nowadays tells one and "full motion video" is everywhere.

 

[AntiChri5]

It's a modern castlevania done right.
Who cares about labels.
They are pretty flawed anyway, what with a whole genre defined by its perspective and the act of shooting or such gems as "action" and what of "role playing" anyway?
You do "role playing" in pretty much every single game that isn't a puzzle game and it is worth noting that this descriptor was born in a time where telling a story in a game and especially cutscenes were very uncommon while pretty much every game nowadays tells one and "full motion video" is everywhere.

There is a difference between "playing a role" and "roleplaying".

"Playing a role" is a vauge and utterly meaningless nonsense term. Roleplaying (in gaming) is the act of defining a character within the context in the game. When roleplaying, you decide (to a greater or lesser extent) what your character is, what they do, why they do it and how they do it.

 

[loa]

It's a modern castlevania done right.
Who cares about labels.
They are pretty flawed anyway, what with a whole genre defined by its perspective and the act of shooting or such gems as "action" and what of "role playing" anyway?
You do "role playing" in pretty much every single game that isn't a puzzle game and it is worth noting that this descriptor was born in a time where telling a story in a game and especially cutscenes were very uncommon while pretty much every game nowadays tells one and "full motion video" is everywhere.

There is a difference between "playing a role" and "roleplaying".

"Playing a role" is a vauge and utterly meaningless nonsense term. Roleplaying (in gaming) is the act of defining a character within the context in the game. When roleplaying, you decide (to a greater or lesser extent) what your character is, what they do, why they do it and how they do it.

So most jrpgs are not rpgs because you can't switch jobs and the story is laid out for you instead of you filling out the blanks then. Slender is an rpg.

 

[AntiChri5]

It's a modern castlevania done right.
Who cares about labels.
They are pretty flawed anyway, what with a whole genre defined by its perspective and the act of shooting or such gems as "action" and what of "role playing" anyway?
You do "role playing" in pretty much every single game that isn't a puzzle game and it is worth noting that this descriptor was born in a time where telling a story in a game and especially cutscenes were very uncommon while pretty much every game nowadays tells one and "full motion video" is everywhere.

There is a difference between "playing a role" and "roleplaying".

"Playing a role" is a vauge and utterly meaningless nonsense term. Roleplaying (in gaming) is the act of defining a character within the context in the game. When roleplaying, you decide (to a greater or lesser extent) what your character is, what they do, why they do it and how they do it.

So most jrpgs are not rpgs because you can't switch jobs and the story is laid out for you instead of you filling out the blanks then. Slender is an rpg.

Of course JRPG's aren't RPG's. They are JRPG's.

What is Slender?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Dark Souls is like DnD but with the role-playing taken out; thus, Dark Souls is not an RPG because it doesn't have role-playing.

Dark Souls has roleplaying, why would you think otherwise?

Dark Souls barely has any NPCs and the NPCs that are there are just mainly merchants. If you take out the combat aspect of Dark Souls all you have left is walking about empty levels then. Whereas if you take out the combat from say Mass Effect, you still got plenty to do. Dark Souls RPG mechanics are horrible as well; a main stat that does literally nothing (Resistance), magic that doesn't cost an investment of a stat, you can carry everything you ever get, etc. Imagine how bad DnD would be if say Charisma did nothing or if a magic class didn't need to invest in a stat for their magic.

 

[AntiChri5]

Dark Souls is like DnD but with the role-playing taken out; thus, Dark Souls is not an RPG because it doesn't have role-playing.

Dark Souls has roleplaying, why would you think otherwise?

Dark Souls barely has any NPCs and the NPCs that are there are just mainly merchants. If you take out the combat aspect of Dark Souls all you have left is walking about empty levels then. Whereas if you take out the combat from say Mass Effect, you still got plenty to do. Dark Souls RPG mechanics are horrible as well; a main stat that does literally nothing (Resistance), magic that doesn't cost an investment of a stat, you can carry everything you ever get, etc. Imagine how bad DnD would be if say Charisma did nothing or if a magic class didn't need to invest in a stat for their magic.

So? NPC's do not determine whether or not something is an RPG.

Yeah, if you remove a central aspect of the game it stops being what it was. If you take the cars out of a racing game it stops being a racing game. Take the guns out of a shooter it stops being a shooter. And if you take the combat out of Dark Souls you have much less (there are still the covenants) options when it comes to defining your character. This argument is really silly.

I was starting to respond to your other arguments, about the gameplay, but then i realised it was completely besides the point. It's fine for you to dislike Dark Souls. Im not it's biggest fan. But it is still an RPG.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

So? NPC's do not determine whether or not something is an RPG.

Yeah, if you remove a central aspect of the game it stops being what it was. If you take the cars out of a racing game it stops being a racing game. Take the guns out of a shooter it stops being a shooter. And if you take the combat out of Dark Souls you have much less (there are still the covenants) options when it comes to defining your character. This argument is really silly.

I was starting to respond to your other arguments, about the gameplay, but then i realised it was completely besides the point. It's fine for you to dislike Dark Souls. Im not it's biggest fan. But it is still an RPG.

Many games like Resident Evil 4 have merchants; merchants don't make a game an RPG. The central aspect of an RPG is ROLE-PLAYING, not combat. If you take combat out of Mass Effect, it's filled with role-playing, quite the opposite for Dark Souls. Yes, Dark Souls has SOME role-playing aspects to it, but that is not the main focus of the game. It's like calling Bioshock Infinite a platformer because it has SOME platforming. To be a platformer, the game's core focus must be platforming; to be a shooter, the game's core focus has to be on the shooting; etc. Dark Souls core focus is obviously on combat, thus it's not an RPG. That has nothing to do with how good or bad I think Dark Souls is. How can you honestly say with a straight face that the core aspect of Dark Souls is role-playing?

 

[sanquin]

So dark souls is a survival horror rpg...big deal. Though I don't agree. Where is the survival part? You just respawn, and if you collect your souls you don't even lose anything but a bit of durability. Plus, horror? Yes the world is gritty (real gritty. Not CoD gritty) and the monsters are big and scary. But this level of gritty/scary doesn't make it a horror game, imo.

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

The problem we're running into here is that for ages, people have been identifying major game mechanics, which are important aspects of games, and referring to them as genres, which they aren't.

For example, in videogames, "RPG" just refers to a game that uses the leveling-up-your-character mechanic present in many tabletop roleplaying games. It's certainly important to know if a game does that, just like it's important to know that it has first-person shooting, but they aren't genres. For example, Pokemon, Fallout 3, and Dark Souls are all RPGs, but no two of them really fall into one genre. Similarly, Portal, Far Cry 3, and Call of Duty are all first-person shooters, but they're all in different genres as well.

So essentially what's happening here is that we've hit on a specific example of people noticing where the use of mechanics as genres falls apart, with Dark Souls being an RPG in terms of mechanics, but not being in the same genre as other RPGs they've played.

See also the fact that "roleplaying" in videogames can mean character advancement mechanics, OR in-depth narrative interaction with other characters, which don't really have anything to do with each other except that tabletop games tend to combine them.

 

[sanquin]

Many games like Resident Evil 4 have merchants; merchants don't make a game an RPG. The central aspect of an RPG is ROLE-PLAYING, not combat. If you take combat out of Mass Effect, it's filled with role-playing, quite the opposite for Dark Souls. Yes, Dark Souls has SOME role-playing aspects to it, but that is not the main focus of the game. It's like calling Bioshock Infinite a platformer because it has SOME platforming. To be a platformer, the game's core focus must be platforming; to be a shooter, the game's core focus has to be on the shooting; etc. Dark Souls core focus is obviously on combat, thus it's not an RPG. That has nothing to do with how good or bad I think Dark Souls is. How can you honestly say with a straight face that the core aspect of Dark Souls is role-playing?

So the roleplay is less obvious. It doesn't give you your story to 'roleplay' on directly. But it IS there. I've learned that roleplay where very little story is given, and where the player is allowed more freedom in how they play, the roleplay is only better.

There's a story behind every area. There's a story behind every major monster and npc. The lore is incredible for this game, at least in my opinion. It's just that the world doesn't care about you. They don't spill their life story when you talk to them, and they don't particularly need your help. You're not the hero. You're there for you, and if you want to find out about the world, read descriptions, talk to npc's, etc. The story is for you to make yourself.

 

[AntiChri5]

So? NPC's do not determine whether or not something is an RPG.

Yeah, if you remove a central aspect of the game it stops being what it was. If you take the cars out of a racing game it stops being a racing game. Take the guns out of a shooter it stops being a shooter. And if you take the combat out of Dark Souls you have much less (there are still the covenants) options when it comes to defining your character. This argument is really silly.

I was starting to respond to your other arguments, about the gameplay, but then i realised it was completely besides the point. It's fine for you to dislike Dark Souls. Im not it's biggest fan. But it is still an RPG.

Many games like Resident Evil 4 have merchants; merchants don't make a game an RPG. The central aspect of an RPG is ROLE-PLAYING, not combat. If you take combat out of Mass Effect, it's filled with role-playing, quite the opposite for Dark Souls. Yes, Dark Souls has SOME role-playing aspects to it, but that is not the main focus of the game. It's like calling Bioshock Infinite a platformer because it has SOME platforming. To be a platformer, the game's core focus must be platforming; to be a shooter, the game's core focus has to be on the shooting; etc. Dark Souls core focus is obviously on combat, thus it's not an RPG. That has nothing to do with how good or bad I think Dark Souls is. How can you honestly say with a straight face that the core aspect of Dark Souls is role-playing?

I never said merchants made a game an RPG.

I agree with you that the central aspect of an RPG is roleplaying. Thats not the issue here. Where we disagree is that i believe roleplaying can happen within combat. Character build, playstyle and gear go a long way in defining a character, particularly in Dark Souls. Arguing what Dark Souls would be if you removed the combat is pointless, because if you removed the combat of Dark Souls it wouldn't be Dark Souls anymore.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

So the roleplay is less obvious. It doesn't give you your story to 'roleplay' on directly. But it IS there. I've learned that roleplay where very little story is given, and where the player is allowed more freedom in how they play, the roleplay is only better.

There's a story behind every area. There's a story behind every major monster and npc. The lore is incredible for this game, at least in my opinion. It's just that the world doesn't care about you. They don't spill their life story when you talk to them, and they don't particularly need your help. You're not the hero. You're there for you, and if you want to find out about the world, read descriptions, talk to npc's, etc. The story is for you to make yourself.

I'm not saying there is no role-playing in DS, I'm saying that's not the focus of the game. It's not a question amount of story and NPCs spilling their life stories, it's about how little choice you actually have in the game outside of combat. DS is just your character crawling through one huge dungeon. Yeah, you can make up your own little stories for various things and such, but you can do that with just about every game.

I agree with you that the central aspect of an RPG is roleplaying. Thats not the issue here. Where we disagree is that i believe roleplaying can happen within combat. Character build, playstyle and gear go a long way in defining a character, particularly in Dark Souls. Arguing what Dark Souls would be if you removed the combat is pointless, because if you removed the combat of Dark Souls it wouldn't be Dark Souls anymore.

I agree that there's role-playing within combat but it's only an extension of your character. If you create your character, give them their own personality and such, then you can't be railroaded into being say a rogue. You should be able to do plenty of things outside of combat that define and develop your character. If you removed combat from Mass Effect, it would still be Mass Effect (you can do the same with DnD). To me, removing combat and seeing what you have left is the true test for determining if a game is an RPG or not.

 

[Augustine]

I would have to say that Dark Souls IS an RPG, albeit a very subtle one. The game has a very elaborate story and plot, but the game does not give it to you - plot is hard to see unless you seek it out yourself. It is part of its unique atmosphere. Couple that with the fact that protagonist cannot speak as well...

What we have, then is:
Elaborate plot, and intricate world;
Character progression;
Control over the ending of the story;

That alone is enough to deem something an RPG in my book.

 

[AntiChri5]

So the roleplay is less obvious. It doesn't give you your story to 'roleplay' on directly. But it IS there. I've learned that roleplay where very little story is given, and where the player is allowed more freedom in how they play, the roleplay is only better.

There's a story behind every area. There's a story behind every major monster and npc. The lore is incredible for this game, at least in my opinion. It's just that the world doesn't care about you. They don't spill their life story when you talk to them, and they don't particularly need your help. You're not the hero. You're there for you, and if you want to find out about the world, read descriptions, talk to npc's, etc. The story is for you to make yourself.

I'm not saying there is no role-playing in DS, I'm saying that's not the focus of the game. It's not a question amount of story and NPCs spilling their life stories, it's about how little choice you actually have in the game outside of combat. DS is just your character crawling through one huge dungeon. Yeah, you can make up your own little stories for various things and such, but you can do that with just about every game.

I agree with you that the central aspect of an RPG is roleplaying. Thats not the issue here. Where we disagree is that i believe roleplaying can happen within combat. Character build, playstyle and gear go a long way in defining a character, particularly in Dark Souls. Arguing what Dark Souls would be if you removed the combat is pointless, because if you removed the combat of Dark Souls it wouldn't be Dark Souls anymore.

I agree that there's role-playing within combat but it's only an extension of your character. If you create your character, give them their own personality and such, then you can't be railroaded into being say a rogue. You should be able to do plenty of things outside of combat that define and develop your character. If you removed combat from Mass Effect, it would still be Mass Effect (you can do the same with DnD). To me, removing combat and seeing what you have left is the true test for determining if a game is an RPG or not.

I disagree about Mass Effect. If you remove the combat, it wouldn't be Mass Effect anymore. It would be close. It wouldn't be nearly as big a difference as that between Dark Souls and Dark Souls without the combat. But it wouldn't quite be Mass Effect. For example, I have six Shepards of varying personality. One for each class, and their character is based very much on their class.

Other then that, there is nothing more for me to really say. You have made your points well and articulated your position, as i hope i have. All ther is left is to agree to disagree on certain things. I don't think removing the com,bat is a good way to judge an RPG, you think it's the ultimate test. Fair enough.

 

[SecondPrize]

A game doesn't have to neatly fit in one box only. Dark Souls has a lot of basic RPG elements like its attribute and gear progression. The addition of survival elements doesn't make the rpg stuff go away.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

On the other hand, there are people who call Fallout 3 and Mass Effect RPG's as well, merely because they have inventories and dialogue trees...

I've seen people dismiss them as RPGs merely because of their real time combat elements and fPS/TPS gameplay.

 

[AntiChri5]

On the other hand, there are people who call Fallout 3 and Mass Effect RPG's as well, merely because they have inventories and dialogue trees...

They also have something rather important to RPG's, roleplaying.

 

[Mzuark]

It's really not, so I find it funny that people rag on Skyrim for not giving you any real choice when in Dark Souls it's not like choice matters in the slightest. It doesn't affect the game at all.

But you know those wacky Dark Souls fans, they can turn any flaw into a "plus"

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I disagree about Mass Effect. If you remove the combat, it wouldn't be Mass Effect anymore. It would be close. It wouldn't be nearly as big a difference as that between Dark Souls and Dark Souls without the combat. But it wouldn't quite be Mass Effect. For example, I have six Shepards of varying personality. One for each class, and their character is based very much on their class.

Other then that, there is nothing more for me to really say. You have made your points well and articulated your position, as i hope i have. All ther is left is to agree to disagree on certain things. I don't think removing the com,bat is a good way to judge an RPG, you think it's the ultimate test. Fair enough.

The reason why I feel you need to remove combat because a character is not defined by his/her/its combat abilities. Just like Michael Jordan as a person is not defined by what he did on the court and his basketball playstyle, that is merely an extension of his person.

On the other hand, there are people who call Fallout 3 and Mass Effect RPG's as well, merely because they have inventories and dialogue trees...

They also have something rather important to RPG's, roleplaying.

This.