Dark Souls isn't an RPG

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

How does leveling a character, creating a build and using it in combat make it an RPG over a "strategic-combat fantasy" game? What role are you playing, what decisions are you making other than how to fight a monster? Like I said all games where you control a character are RPGs and what is at the core of the gameplay of dark souls? ...combat, strategic combat.

Which is pretty much the original definition of AD&D. The experience was essentially "A fighter, a mage, a thief and a priest goes into a dungeon to kill stuff, overcome environmental obstacles and get loot". Look at pretty much any module Gary Gygax ever made to see this in full effect (and they are considered RPG module classics).

There is no alignment, personality traits and the only decisions you make in game are which direction to go and which order to try and kill bosses. I've been tabletop gaming for over 20 years and if dark souls was a module it would be a severely boring one. It has its similarity with D&D sure but at its core its a strategic-combat game.

Which D&D also was for most of its' existence so far. It wasn't until D&D 3rd Ed that social skills was even a thing. Once again, look at any Gygax module, they are pretty much all a compilation of combat encounters and environmental obstacles (often traps for the thief to bypass) with limited attention paid to character characterization or intra-party dynamics other than "tank, mage, healer, DPS".

D&D is still an RPG if you remove all the stats, leveling, items and fantasy. If you remove those features from dark souls what are you left with?

Remove all those things and you have improvisational theater (which is great fun, by the way). Make no mistake, D&D, like any other RPG, is at its' core a collection of rules meant to define the boundaries of the game. Even fairly characterization intensive games like White Wolf games tend to take up almost double the amount of core book space just to explain rules compared to describing the world.

You can't get around the fact that Dark Souls is essentially a modernized take on a Gary Gygax module of the 80's. To admit that AD&D is an RPG is to also accept that Dark Souls does the exact same thing AD&D set out to do, but in a virtual world rather than a imaginary, verbally described one. Whatever or not AD&D would make a good roleplaying experience today does not change the fact that it was, and still is, labelled a roleplaying game.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

I really don't care for the genre name "Action". A game's primary function is to allow the player actions. Because of that, I think it is too vague. I think genres do need to be reworked again though. Check this out:

While I agree that video game genres are vague and often meaningless, definitely being in need of reworking, I'm using "action" here to refer to games that are not turn-based and occur in real time. Possibly fallaciously.

 

[Spearmaster]

How does leveling a character, creating a build and using it in combat make it an RPG over a "strategic-combat fantasy" game? What role are you playing, what decisions are you making other than how to fight a monster? Like I said all games where you control a character are RPGs and what is at the core of the gameplay of dark souls? ...combat, strategic combat.

Which is pretty much the original definition of AD&D. The experience was essentially "A fighter, a mage, a thief and a priest goes into a dungeon to kill stuff, overcome environmental obstacles and get loot". Look at pretty much any module Gary Gygax ever made to see this in full effect (and they are considered RPG module classics).

Well looking through my AD&D books ill just have to disagree with you. There was never a limit put on what you could or couldn't do. In Dark Souls there are great limits and restraints put on the player that make any kind of "role playing" impossible other than stat build and weapon choice.

There is no alignment, personality traits and the only decisions you make in game are which direction to go and which order to try and kill bosses. I've been tabletop gaming for over 20 years and if dark souls was a module it would be a severely boring one. It has its similarity with D&D sure but at its core its a strategic-combat game.

Which D&D also was for most of its' existence so far. It wasn't until D&D 3rd Ed that social skills was even a thing. Once again, look at any Gygax module, they are pretty much all a compilation of combat encounters and environmental obstacles (often traps for the thief to bypass) with limited attention paid to character characterization or intra-party dynamics other than "tank, mage, healer, DPS".

Well seeing as skills did not exist until 3rd ed. you not wrong but saying social interaction did not exist is a far stretch, it was there they just didn't feel a need to add actual rules for it. I was completely inferred with charisma and alignment.

On the modules thing...you do realize that modules were more of a single pre-made dungeon not the whole of the D&D experience right, modules were not absolute in the fact that other D&D play could be present within a module and modules were not required to play at all. A module on its own is not an RPG. You run a module within a RPG campaign.

D&D is still an RPG if you remove all the stats, leveling, items and fantasy. If you remove those features from dark souls what are you left with?

Remove all those things and you have improvisational theater (which is great fun, by the way). Make no mistake, D&D, like any other RPG, is at its' core a collection of rules meant to define the boundaries of the game. Even fairly characterization intensive games like White Wolf games tend to take up almost double the amount of core book space just to explain rules compared to describing the world.

Rules meant to define the boundaries of the combat not the game. As you said rules on socialization didn't exist till 3rd edition. The books actually encouraged adjusting the rules to fit the campaign, adding new rules and so on.

You can't get around the fact that Dark Souls is essentially a modernized take on a Gary Gygax module of the 80's. To admit that AD&D is an RPG is to also accept that Dark Souls does the exact same thing AD&D set out to do, but in a virtual world rather than a imaginary, verbally described one. Whatever or not AD&D would make a good roleplaying experience today does not change the fact that it was, and still is, labelled a roleplaying game.

A modernized take on a module is a far cry from a full RPG. Saying to accept AD&D one also must accept Dark Souls screams false equivalency to me, its like saying a dog must also be a horse because the both have 4 legs, a tail and ears.

I'm not saying its a bad game but people seem to think that leveling, items and a fantasy setting automatically make a game an RPG. I guess I'm more of a purest when it comes to video games claiming to be RPGs. We need a percentage rating for games rather than a yes/no system for determining a games RPG status. I would give Dark Souls a 20% RPG rating.

 

[lapan]

Well looking through my AD&D books ill just have to disagree with you. There was never a limit put on what you could or couldn't do. In Dark Souls there are great limits and restraints put on the player that make any kind of "role playing" impossible other than stat build and weapon choice.

What kind of restraints? they give you several covenants with different alignments to choose from. You can decide to play offline, invade others for your profit or help others. You can decide to recreate virtually any enemy in the game and roleplay as them. The only limit is your own imagination

You can't do EVERYTHING but that constraint applies to any video game.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Also grind does not suddenly make a Video game RPG not a RPG. Since, the dawn of time grind has been ingrained in the genre in some form or another and there is no true way to escape this. The grind essentially serves as your own difficulty vs time. Boss too hard? Grind. Boss too easy? Fight less. A crude tie over from the days of Ultima.

Whatever you do most in a game is the game's main genre. If you hack and slash in whatever game more than anything else, it's a hack and slash first and foremost, then it can have many secondary genres/elements like platforming or RPGing. Isn't that a pretty damn simple and logical way to categorize game genres. The whole having enemies set at static levels is just bad game design. You seriously need to use a guide to know what order you're supposed to play through content at, which is just asinine. Like Borderlands, you had to play through DLC at specifics times or it was too hard or too easy.

MMORPGs are MMOs because they are generally quite large scale include many people functioning in the one society and are online. They are RPGs because they provide the Role playing element of playing a role in this world and stats with the various attributes and gear. Dislike the gear treadmill and farming required in some of these games is fine however, disliking these elements does not make them any less of a RPG. I can dislike Army of Twos spectacle tag team mechanics doesn't mean I can consider it not to be a TPS.

Again, whatever you do most in a game is it's main genre. Uncharted is a TPS because you shoot more than platform, puzzle solve, and adventure.

The only real difference between WRPGs, JRPGs and ARPGs on the RP side, mainly is the degree of freedom given to dialogue and your own role play element. WRPGs taking the route of close to deciding what ever you want, ARPGs falling somewhere in the middle being more linear and with JRPGs being the most linear. WRPGs essentially having choose your own adventure book elements with the dialogue does not make them any more of a RPG than any other RPG out there.

The RP side is the most important thing in an RPG. JRPGs are nothing but point and click adventure games with a combat system thrown in. The Longest Journey suddenly wouldn't become an RPG if April Ryan had a turn-based battle every 3 steps.

Weren't you just talking about how opinions were always right a second ago? Whatever, I can argue this point as well. If we were to objectively take a look at the definition of RPG, then nearly every game out there could be considered an RPG. "A role-playing game is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting." With this in mind, am I not playing the role of a character in a multiplayer match of Battlefield 4? Those matches take place in the future during a fictional skirmish, and I have my choice of who I want to play during those encounters and how to engage other players due to the class based gameplay. Objectively, the definition of RPG is useless. Which leads me to your next point.

You missed the most important part of the definition: Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. That definition fits all mediums from pen and paper to video games to live-action role-playing.

You realize you are contradicting yourself here right? When using your "it's not close enough to tabletop RPing", you are speaking from a traditional standpoint. In the paragraph above, you try to discredit traditional views, in a weak attempt to say that just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right. News flash, just because everyone does it, doesn't make it wrong either.

I don't care how close something is to tabletop RPing because I don't consider tabletop RPing to even be the first form of RPGs, which is live-action. Many people think player skill shouldn't be involved in RPGs (which is why some people say Mass Effect 2/3, Dark Souls, etc. aren't RPGs because player skill is greatly involved, I'm not in that camp); however, player skill is indeed involved in live-action RPGs and those existed before tabletop RPGs. Player skill is also involved in tabletop RPGs to how your character talks and converses among player characters and NPCs; if you want your character to be funny, you can't just say "my character says something funny", you have to think of something funny to say so your character can't be funny unless you're funny.

Some people don't make up stories around their character, but everyone makes choices and has a unique experience. As long as there is choice in how you can build your character, we are going to continue to see these games called RPGs with whatever variation of modifier thrown at it.

You can make up stories in Mario as well. That's why a game most have a process of structured decision making (outside of live-action RPGs) or else EVERY game can qualify as an RPG. Far Cry 3 is as much an RPG as Dark Souls, yet it's not called an RPG. Dark Souls is as much a hack and slash as Far Cry 3 is a shooter; I'd even say Bayonetta has more play options than Dark Souls as DS really disappointed me in that regard.

 

[Church185]

You missed the most important part of the definition: Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. That definition fits all mediums from pen and paper to video games to live-action role-playing.

It doesn't actually, here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game] is wikipedia's (your source) definition of a role playing video game.

I don't care how close something is to tabletop RPing because I don't consider tabletop RPing to even be the first form of RPGs, which is live-action. Many people think player skill shouldn't be involved in RPGs (which is why some people say Mass Effect 2/3, Dark Souls, etc. aren't RPGs because player skill is greatly involved, I'm not in that camp); however, player skill is indeed involved in live-action RPGs and those existed before tabletop RPGs. Player skill is also involved in tabletop RPGs to how your character talks and converses among player characters and NPCs; if you want your character to be funny, you can't just say "my character says something funny", you have to think of something funny to say so your character can't be funny unless you're funny.

What does any of that stuff have to do with video games?

You can make up stories in Mario as well. That's why a game most have a process of structured decision making (outside of live-action RPGs) or else EVERY game can qualify as an RPG. Far Cry 3 is as much an RPG as Dark Souls, yet it's not called an RPG. Dark Souls is as much a hack and slash as Far Cry 3 is a shooter; I'd even say Bayonetta has more play options than Dark Souls as DS really disappointed me in that regard.

Far Cry 3's moment to moment gameplay doesn't change all that much based on how your character progresses. Sure he will shoot better with certain guns, but most of those guns behave extremely similar to each other and the main character can still use other weapons proficiently.

As far as claiming Bayonetta has more play options than Dark Souls proves to me that you either didn't play it or didn't understand the depth of the options available to you. It's interesting that I only ever see your name come up in topics complaining about Dark Souls in one way or another. Even when you create threads about entirely different games (Amalur), it always comes back to saying that game is better than Dark Souls in one way or another.

Why is that? You seem to have a grudge.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Also grind does not suddenly make a Video game RPG not a RPG. Since, the dawn of time grind has been ingrained in the genre in some form or another and there is no true way to escape this. The grind essentially serves as your own difficulty vs time. Boss too hard? Grind. Boss too easy? Fight less. A crude tie over from the days of Ultima.

Whatever you do most in a game is the game's main genre. If you hack and slash in whatever game more than anything else, it's a hack and slash first and foremost, then it can have many secondary genres/elements like platforming or RPGing. Isn't that a pretty damn simple and logical way to categorize game genres. The whole having enemies set at static levels is just bad game design. You seriously need to use a guide to know what order you're supposed to play through content at, which is just asinine. Like Borderlands, you had to play through DLC at specifics times or it was too hard or too easy.

MMORPGs are MMOs because they are generally quite large scale include many people functioning in the one society and are online. They are RPGs because they provide the Role playing element of playing a role in this world and stats with the various attributes and gear. Dislike the gear treadmill and farming required in some of these games is fine however, disliking these elements does not make them any less of a RPG. I can dislike Army of Twos spectacle tag team mechanics doesn't mean I can consider it not to be a TPS.

Again, whatever you do most in a game is it's main genre. Uncharted is a TPS because you shoot more than platform, puzzle solve, and adventure.

The only real difference between WRPGs, JRPGs and ARPGs on the RP side, mainly is the degree of freedom given to dialogue and your own role play element. WRPGs taking the route of close to deciding what ever you want, ARPGs falling somewhere in the middle being more linear and with JRPGs being the most linear. WRPGs essentially having choose your own adventure book elements with the dialogue does not make them any more of a RPG than any other RPG out there.

The RP side is the most important thing in an RPG. JRPGs are nothing but point and click adventure games with a combat system thrown in. The Longest Journey suddenly wouldn't become an RPG if April Ryan had a turn-based battle every 3 steps.

No you don't need a guide to do anything in any game with static levels. People were doing just fine without access to loads of easy guides and people still finish games with such mechanics fine without guides. Plenty of people also think scaling enemies makes for essentially the same as static levelling. you just get to make arbitrary choices eg Mass Effect. Mass Effect in story progression is just as linear as FF XIII.

Ok that's fine, so we're agreed that MMORPGs are RPGs then.

No the Role playing part of a Role playing game is not the most important part. There is whole games and rule thing that makes it a game. Sure why not lets just make shit up and say something isn't like the rest of stuff I like because I don't like it.

You're far too fixated on random battles and turn based combat to have a reasonable discussion with given [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Ocean:_Till_the_End_of_Time] the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_of_Vesperia] plethora [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baten_Kaitos:_Eternal_Wings_and_the_Lost_Ocean] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_Mystic_Quest] JRPGs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XII] that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Hearts] lack [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Megami_Tensei:_Persona_4] both [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Megami_Tensei:_Persona_3] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Sonata] one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Remnant]. I certainly can't think of any games or series that fit that bill as all JRPGs are nothing but random encounters, fully turn based combat, angsty teens, linear story, shit/ridiculous fashion and hair styles along with bishonen males and annoying high pitched women.

 

[Bombiz]

snip

if i have to be honest i wouldn't really consider games like the "Longest Journey" and "Mass Effect"(or most games really) rpg's. Instead, games like Mount and Blade are rpg's. games where your thrown into the world to do as you please. Not have a set story line to follow.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

It doesn't actually, here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game] is wikipedia's (your source) definition of a role playing video game.

I'm talking about the definition of an RPG, video game doesn't matter as an RPG is an RPG regardless of medium. Obviously that definition fails because every video game is an RPG with that definition.

What does any of that stuff have to do with video games?

You said I come from a tabletop RPG perspective and expect video games to adhere to them, which I totally don't.

Far Cry 3's moment to moment gameplay doesn't change all that much based on how your character progresses. Sure he will shoot better with certain guns, but most of those guns behave extremely similar to each other and the main character can still use other weapons proficiently.

As far as claiming Bayonetta has more play options than Dark Souls proves to me that you either didn't play it or didn't understand the depth of the options available to you. It's interesting that I only ever see your name come up in topics complaining about Dark Souls in one way or another. Even when you create threads about entirely different games (Amalur), it always comes back to saying that game is better than Dark Souls in one way or another.

Why is that? You seem to have a grudge.

Far Cry 3 has a stealth system whereas Dark Souls doesn't and the invisibility ring doesn't count. I couldn't play as a stealthy rogue in Dark Souls whereas I actually can in Far Cry 3 because Far Cry 3's AI is so much better than Dark Souls. Melee combat isn't very different at all in Dark Souls from playing as a thief with a light shield (as I could block pretty much every enemy's attack) to playing as with a great sword with heavy armor and a big shield, you're just slower or faster really. Then, magic in Dark Souls is pretty disappointing as well. At least the AI in Far Cry 3 isn't so braindead that they don't move when you shoot them from afar like Dark Souls. Bayonetta's playstyles based on equipment vary more than Dark Souls.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

No the Role playing part of a Role playing game is not the most important part.

Yeah, it is. If shooting is not the most important part of a shooter, then Mirror's Edge is a fucking shooter. Hell, Dark Souls is a shooter too. Why would RPGs be any different?

if i have to be honest i wouldn't really consider games like the "Longest Journey" and "Mass Effect"(or most games really) rpg's. Instead, games like Mount and Blade are rpg's. games where your thrown into the world to do as you please. Not have a set story line to follow.

The Longest Journey is pretty much the ideal point and click adventure game. My point is that would The Longest Journey be considered an RPG if the main character (April Ryan) had to fight enemies every few steps like say a typical Final Fantasy game?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No the Role playing part of a Role playing game is not the most important part.

Yeah, it is. If shooting is not the most important part of a shooter, then Mirror's Edge is a fucking shooter. Hell, Dark Souls is a shooter too. Why would RPGs be any different?

if i have to be honest i wouldn't really consider games like the "Longest Journey" and "Mass Effect"(or most games really) rpg's. Instead, games like Mount and Blade are rpg's. games where your thrown into the world to do as you please. Not have a set story line to follow.

The Longest Journey is pretty much the ideal point and click adventure game. My point is that would The Longest Journey be considered an RPG if the main character (April Ryan) had to fight enemies every few steps like say a typical Final Fantasy game?

Sure and CoD is a great TPS as we're free to ignore a third of words describing a genre. How your role mechanically affects a portion of the game as in classes stats is not important to making a RPG. Good to know we're finally on the same page and completely ignoring arguments.

 

[Bombiz]

No the Role playing part of a Role playing game is not the most important part.

Yeah, it is. If shooting is not the most important part of a shooter, then Mirror's Edge is a fucking shooter. Hell, Dark Souls is a shooter too. Why would RPGs be any different?

if i have to be honest i wouldn't really consider games like the "Longest Journey" and "Mass Effect"(or most games really) rpg's. Instead, games like Mount and Blade are rpg's. games where your thrown into the world to do as you please. Not have a set story line to follow.

The Longest Journey is pretty much the ideal point and click adventure game. My point is that would The Longest Journey be considered an RPG if the main character (April Ryan) had to fight enemies every few steps like say a typical Final Fantasy game?

ok fine. but my Mass Effect point still stands. you can't have a liner story with a predetermined beginning, middle, and end but still have elements of serious RP.

I spent more time role-playing in Mass Effect than I did shooting. You spent more time dungeon crawling than role-playing in DS.

assuming you can even role play in a game that only gives you a set number of options to choose from.

 

[DoPo]

however, player skill is indeed involved in live-action RPGs and those existed before tabletop RPGs. Player skill is also involved in tabletop RPGs to how your character talks and converses among player characters and NPCs; if you want your character to be funny, you can't just say "my character says something funny", you have to think of something funny to say so your character can't be funny unless you're funny.

Ri-i-i-ight. So that's why characters have social skills and attributes in PnP and (at least some) LARPs. Because in order for your character to speak, say, German, you yourself have to know German, and in order for your ultra-good-at-talking character to bamboozle somebody with a conversation about spoons, you yourself have to be an avid spoon enthusiast. I always wandered why would I need to put points into Language or Speechcraft, or Knowledge: Spooons on the character sheet - it turns out, I was merely rating myself. And I suppose we roll the dice and do some arithmetic based on those numbers because...we like the sound of dice and we are addicted to maths. That really clears it up for me.

Say, what's the custom when you have a character that knows Alchemy or similar? Do you bring your alchemy beakers, materials, and stuff to the game, or is the GM supposed to supply you with them?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

ok fine. but my Mass Effect point still stands. you can't have a liner story with a predetermined beginning, middle, and end but still have elements of serious RP.

You still have a good deal of control over your Shepard. You can only have a story so open-ended in a video game, just the amount of writing to have 2 branching paths is double the writing, and it just keeps going up exponentially the more branching paths you keep adding in. Even in pen and paper RPGs, the DM does lead you down a set path. Of course, the nature of pen and paper games allows for dynamics with the story, plus the DM is able to alter things based on what happen in the previous session(s), which you can't do in a video game. Mass Effect gives you important side choices because you can't really have several major choices that greatly change the main storyline. My friends and I discussed many decisions in Mass Effect for hours, I still argue to them that killing...

Spoiler

Mordin was the ethically right choice.

So that's why characters have social skills and attributes in PnP and (at least some) LARPs. Because in order for your character to speak, say, German, you yourself have to know German, and in order for your ultra-good-at-talking character to bamboozle somebody with a conversation about spoons, you yourself have to be an avid spoon enthusiast. I always wandered why would I need to put points into Language or Speechcraft, or Knowledge: Spooons on the character sheet - it turns out, I was merely rating myself. And I suppose we roll the dice and do some arithmetic based on those numbers because...we like the sound of dice and we are addicted to maths. That really clears it up for me.

Say, what's the custom when you have a character that knows Alchemy or similar? Do you bring your alchemy beakers, materials, and stuff to the game, or is the GM supposed to supply you with them?

I know there's a diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, etc. skills. But each player's speech ability does come into play even with those kind of skills. To properly bluff, you need to make a series of semi-believable lies that lead into a rather unbelievable lie instead of just coming out with that unbelievable lie.

 

[Bombiz]

ok fine. but my Mass Effect point still stands. you can't have a liner story with a predetermined beginning, middle, and end but still have elements of serious RP.

You still have a good deal of control over your Shepard. You can only have a story so open-ended in a video game, just the amount of writing to have 2 branching paths is double the writing, and it just keeps going up exponentially the more branching paths you keep adding in. Even in pen and paper RPGs, the DM does lead you down a set path. Of course, the nature of pen and paper games allows for dynamics with the story, plus the DM is able to alter things based on what happen in the previous session(s), which you can't do in a video game. Mass Effect gives you important side choices because you can't really have several major choices that greatly change the main storyline. My friends and I discussed many decisions in Mass Effect for hours, I still argue to them that killing...

Spoiler

Mordin was the ethically right choice.

So that's why characters have social skills and attributes in PnP and (at least some) LARPs. Because in order for your character to speak, say, German, you yourself have to know German, and in order for your ultra-good-at-talking character to bamboozle somebody with a conversation about spoons, you yourself have to be an avid spoon enthusiast. I always wandered why would I need to put points into Language or Speechcraft, or Knowledge: Spooons on the character sheet - it turns out, I was merely rating myself. And I suppose we roll the dice and do some arithmetic based on those numbers because...we like the sound of dice and we are addicted to maths. That really clears it up for me.

Say, what's the custom when you have a character that knows Alchemy or similar? Do you bring your alchemy beakers, materials, and stuff to the game, or is the GM supposed to supply you with them?

I know there's a diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, etc. skills. But each player's speech ability does come into play even with those kind of skills. To properly bluff, you need to make a series of semi-believable lies that lead into a rather unbelievable lie instead of just coming out with that unbelievable lie.

your assuming that you need a story inorder to role play.

Spoiler

you don't.

true role play comes from deciding on your own what you want to do.

 

[Spearmaster]

Well looking through my AD&D books ill just have to disagree with you. There was never a limit put on what you could or couldn't do. In Dark Souls there are great limits and restraints put on the player that make any kind of "role playing" impossible other than stat build and weapon choice.

What kind of restraints? they give you several covenants with different alignments to choose from. You can decide to play offline, invade others for your profit or help others. You can decide to recreate virtually any enemy in the game and roleplay as them. The only limit is your own imagination

You can't do EVERYTHING but that constraint applies to any video game.

I don't see where you roleplay as anything, you just fight as someone, the covenant choices are little more than that of a perk that you have to unlock by meeting some requirement or another. Playing offline, co-op or invading are no different than options available in many non-rpg games. As far as limitations...well what are your options in the game? Well there is fight...and that's pretty much it, combat, its the point of the game and its done by design. I would say its more along the line of a create you own character castlevania game which is the most accurate comparison I can come up with. I feel it falls well short of an rpg but many rpg claims do. I could say free roaming action game with jrpg elements at best.

 

[Spearmaster]

D&D is still an RPG if you remove all the stats, leveling, items and fantasy. If you remove those features from dark souls what are you left with?

DnD without rules and statistics is not an RPG. It is just RP

For there are no games without rules. The rules are what make a game a game.

Yes D&D is still role-playing but what is Dark Souls without those elements?

Now take those elements and add them to say...sonic the hedgehog 3, does it magically make it an rpg?

You need a "role playing" element to have a "role playing" game, not a level/stat/item progression element.

 

[EternallyBored]

How has this argument gone on for 5 pages? Do people really care that much about whether a game holds a mostly meaningless genre label or not, or is this really just 5 pages of everyone quibbling over their individual definitions of what constitutes an RPG and why their specific definition should be the one everyone else uses.

Even the people agreeing with each other on whether the game qualifies as an RPG or not, are operating of different definitions and arguments, this entire topic seems to have degenerated into a contest into seeing who can have the most pedantic definition of an RPG.

Even if one side wins, nothing actually changes about Dark Souls itself, the game is completely unaffected whether we call it an RPG, an action RPG, a plain old action game, a hack-and-slash, hell, we could call it an adventure game and proceed to have an equally pointless and empty debate about whether that label applies or not.

I don't mean to sound judgmental, I really don't care whether Dark Souls is an RPG or not, but I am curious why people here seem to care so much about the game being called an RPG. If we are going to start trying to specify the definition of RPG, it would be far more useful to start with things like JRPGs and RPG mechanics in other genres, rather than trying to single out specific games and working our way from there.

 

[higgs20]

Like a hell of a lot of games out there now days it takes ideas from multiple genres, it's an RPG, with punishingly hard twitch reaction based action gameplay and the bleak general feel of crushing loneliness that is typical of a survival horror or at least survival game.

So, I in short, I disagree, it's not that dark souls isn't an RPG, it's that it's not just an RPG, but like I said, in today's market a multi-genred game is hardly unique or even surprising. Is it?

 

[lapan]

Well looking through my AD&D books ill just have to disagree with you. There was never a limit put on what you could or couldn't do. In Dark Souls there are great limits and restraints put on the player that make any kind of "role playing" impossible other than stat build and weapon choice.

What kind of restraints? they give you several covenants with different alignments to choose from. You can decide to play offline, invade others for your profit or help others. You can decide to recreate virtually any enemy in the game and roleplay as them. The only limit is your own imagination

You can't do EVERYTHING but that constraint applies to any video game.

I don't see where you roleplay as anything, you just fight as someone, the covenant choices are little more than that of a perk that you have to unlock by meeting some requirement or another. Playing offline, co-op or invading are no different than options available in many non-rpg games. As far as limitations...well what are your options in the game? Well there is fight...and that's pretty much it, combat, its the point of the game and its done by design. I would say its more along the line of a create you own character castlevania game which is the most accurate comparison I can come up with. I feel it falls well short of an rpg but many rpg claims do. I could say free roaming action game with jrpg elements at best.

So you only consider games with prewritten characters as roleplaying games? Isn't half the point of roleplaying to make up your own characters?