RPGs defined

[MercurySteam]

I also remembered this:

NetHack = RPG, Mass Effect = chest-high-wall-shooter

Actually, NetHack belongs in an RPG sub-genre [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike].

Plus, NetHack is a game from 1987 with ASCII graphics, while Mass Effect 2 is a futuristic Sci-Fi RPG-shooter, released in 2010 also built with the latest Unreal Engine and made by a company that defines Western RPGs.

It's a bit like comparing Pac-Man with Brink.

 

[Hiphophippo]

RPGs are wargames wherein you control an individual defined by numbers so as to separate player skill/knowledge/ability and character skill/knowledge/abilty. It is not about choices, story or any of that bullshit. NetHack = RPG, Mass Effect = chest-high-wall-shooter.

Anyone agree?

I do not. Nethack clearly IS an rpg, but you lose this thread in the name RPG alone. You play a ROLE as designed by the character and not the game's creater in Mass Effect. Mass Effect 2 blurs the lines a little between genres but honestly, who gives a shit?

Arguing genres in games the lately is a lot like arguing sub genres in metal music, if you're familiar with that. It's almost entirely pointless and the only thing that matters in the end is whether it's any good.

 

[Dexiro]

Wouldn't they just be any game where you take control of a character or characters?

Stat building is a common feature of RPG's, but you can also have story RPGs too.

 

[Axolotl]

It's supposed to be YOU,

And that's where you're wrong. It isn't supossed to be you, it's supposed to be siomebody else, that's the point of role-play. If you skil is important then it's not role-playing. You assume somebody else characteristics and skill not your own.

No, you're playing as a fictional version of yourself. In J"RPG"s, you're controlling J. Random Douchebag. In WRPGs you are controlling you're own digital creation that is your stand-in for yourself.

Since when? RPG's have always been about creating a character for the world. Right back to the Blackmoor campaign they aren't a representation of the player, the whole point is to be somebody else with their own strengths and weaknesses.

 

[bismarck55]

Snip

I'm well aware of the definition of role-play, thank you. It is nearly irrelevant to this discussion, as actual real world role-play has next to nothing to do with role playing games, which as far as I can tell arose when Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson decided to try tabletop wargaming on a small scale by adapting chainmail rules to suit combat between individuals, with players controlling those characters, rather than an army. thus everyone was "playing a role", rather than "role playing".

Unfortunately, the (terrible) name stuck, and now we have people making downright absurd statements about PRGs such as "they are games in which you play a role". So Halo, Super Mario Bros. and Hungry hungry hippos are all roleplaying games? Lolwut?

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I challenge the internet to show me a statistic-lacking game that is unarguably an RPG. If someone can find this, well then I suppose I'd have to disagree with the OP.

I'd like to see a game without statistics. Show me that and you'll have divided by 0.

You mean in a programming sense? If we're talking about invisible statistics, then yeah, that's impossible. If we're talking about overt, obvious statistics which can be measured and quantified by the player, there are plenty of games (something like Hitman: Blood Money or Escape from Butcher Bay) which almost entirely lack that kind of thing. Hitman has 3 measurable types of information, Riddick has 1 which isn't always visible, and another that also is often not visible. Comparatively-speaking there are games out there that, when contrasted with the likes of Morrowind or Final Fantasy Tactics, might as well be a zero on the statistics scale.

 

[bismarck55]

It's supposed to be YOU,

And that's where you're wrong. It isn't supossed to be you, it's supposed to be siomebody else, that's the point of role-play. If you skil is important then it's not role-playing. You assume somebody else characteristics and skill not your own.

I've been waiting to see someone who actually understands this ages now, thank you. It is one of the most basic concepts in RPGs, yet seems to be understood by so few.

 

[MercurySteam]

So Halo, Super Mario Bros. and Hungry hungry hippos are all roleplaying games? Lolwut?

Really? Who told you that?

Halo is a Sci-Fi FPS, Hungry Hungry Hippos is a talpbletop game and Super Mario Bros is a....... Nintendo game.

If you didn't play the role of a character in any game then what would you do? Fiddle with the game settings?

 

[Samurai Goomba]

It's supposed to be YOU,

And that's where you're wrong. It isn't supossed to be you, it's supposed to be siomebody else, that's the point of role-play. If you skil is important then it's not role-playing. You assume somebody else characteristics and skill not your own.

No, you're playing as a fictional version of yourself. In J"RPG"s, you're controlling J. Random Douchebag. In WRPGs you are controlling you're own digital creation that is your stand-in for yourself.

Strange that I'm always very muscular, ruggedly handsome and can't wear the types or even fashion of clothes that I prefer to sport in real life, then. Jade Empire and KotoR were very much Western RPGs, and I never once felt like my character was a representation of myself.

I mean, in real life I look like William Petersen. Where's the Young William Petersen character model? Why do I have to pick between The Rock and Arnold all the time in these games? Well, The Rock, Mr. Schwarzaneggar and a lingerie model. Sometimes Emperor Palpatine is in there, too.

 

[bismarck55]

So Halo, Super Mario Bros. and Hungry hungry hippos are all roleplaying games? Lolwut?

Really? Who told you that?

Halo is a Sci-Fi FPS, Hungry Hungry Hippos is a talpbletop game and Super Mario Bros is a....... Nintendo game.

If you didn't play the role of a character in any game then what would you do? Fiddle with the game settings?

That's my point, you did play the role of these characters.

Halo is game where you play the role of a space marine super soldier, hungry hungry hippos is game where you play the role of a hungry hippo and super mario is a game where you play the role of the savior of the mushroom kingdom (also a plumber).

therefore according to plenty of people commenting in this thread, these games are all RPGs. An idea I find a touch stupid to put it gently.

 

[MercurySteam]

So Halo, Super Mario Bros. and Hungry hungry hippos are all roleplaying games? Lolwut?

Really? Who told you that?

Halo is a Sci-Fi FPS, Hungry Hungry Hippos is a talpbletop game and Super Mario Bros is a....... Nintendo game.

If you didn't play the role of a character in any game then what would you do? Fiddle with the game settings?

That's my point, you did play the role of these characters.

Halo is game where you play the role of a space marine super soldier, hungry hungry hippos is game where you play the role of a hungry hippo and super mario is a game where you play the role of the savior of the mushroom kingdom (also a plumber).

therefore according to plenty of people commenting in this thread, these games are all RPGs. An idea I find a touch stupid to put it gently.

I think people are mostly cheesed-off about your "Mass Effect = chest-high-wall-shooter" comment.

You play more of Shepard's role in Mass Effect than you do with Master Chief in Halo.

ABSOLUTE MORAL: Mass Effect is a true RPG.

 

[bismarck55]

I also remembered this:

NetHack = RPG, Mass Effect = chest-high-wall-shooter

Actually, NetHack belongs in an RPG sub-genre [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roguelike].

Plus, NetHack is a game from 1987 with ASCII graphics, while Mass Effect 2 is a futuristic Sci-Fi RPG-shooter, released in 2010 also built with the latest Unreal Engine and made by a company that defines Western RPGs.

It's a bit like comparing Pac-Man with Brink.

Actually nethack has had tile based graphics for for some time now, though you can still play it in ASCII if you want. I don't consider rogue-likes to be a separate genre at all, either, regardless of what wikipedia says.

Also, Brink looks terrible. I'd play Pac-man over brink any day.

 

[Axolotl]

It's supposed to be YOU,

And that's where you're wrong. It isn't supossed to be you, it's supposed to be siomebody else, that's the point of role-play. If you skil is important then it's not role-playing. You assume somebody else characteristics and skill not your own.

No, you're playing as a fictional version of yourself. In J"RPG"s, you're controlling J. Random Douchebag. In WRPGs you are controlling you're own digital creation that is your stand-in for yourself.

Since when? RPG's have always been about creating a character for the world. Right back to the Blackmoor campaign they aren't a representation of the player, the whole point is to be somebody else with their own strengths and weaknesses.

It's your idealized self. It's the person you WANT to be.

No, no they aren't. Do the people who play an evil character in Morrowind really want to be a demon worshipping assasin? Do the people who do low Int runs in Fallout want to be drooling idiots? Do the people who play CoC want to be helpless pawns driven mad by god-like monsters? Do people who play sorcerors in Carcosa want to be paeophilic psycopaths? No, no a thousand times no.

 

[Ranorak]

Back when RPG was still a table-top thing, you had to have stats for combat, and the story parts for non-combat encounters.

Some RPG's focused more on the stats part for the player to manage, and put the story part totally in the hands of the game master, AKA the programmers. Final Fantasy, Tales series, and Diablo fall to this part.

Others focused more on the choices and the interactiveness and took the battle customisation back a bit.
Think Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Neverwinter Nights. Drago nage, Oblivion.

But at the base they are still RPG's.

Though discussions like this are pointless.
It's like discussing whether or not Deep Purple is Metal or Rock. Genre's are there to give a idea of what the subject might be like. it's not a crystal clear line.

 

[MercurySteam]

RPG's focused more on the stats part for the player to manage, and put the story part totally in the hands of the game master, AKA the programmers. Final Fantasy, Tales series, and Diablo fall to this part.

Others focused more on the choices and the interactiveness and took the battle customisation back a bit.
Think Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Neverwinter Nights. Drago nage, Oblivion.

But at the base they are still RPG's.

ATTENTION OP: This is what we've been saying all along.

Just because a game let's you do cover-based shooting doesn't mean it's any less of an RPG. In fact, if RPGs only had stat buliding we'd get very bored because the year is 2010. Using stat building as a primary function was okay 20 years ago but no anymore I'm afraid; that may be how the genre started out, but I'm sorry to say improvements in technology means we require more to do.

Moral: If a game says RPG under 'genre', save everybody some time and just accept it.

 

[kogane]

My definition of an RPG:

"The world/universe/galaxy is not gonna save itself. Here, have some other suicidal people who will help you for whatever reason of their own, some badass looking skills, and some sweet extras to help you with this.

Now go. Those other useless and sometimes hidden side missions won't do themselves, either."

 

[Ranorak]

It's supposed to be YOU,

And that's where you're wrong. It isn't supossed to be you, it's supposed to be siomebody else, that's the point of role-play. If you skil is important then it's not role-playing. You assume somebody else characteristics and skill not your own.

No, you're playing as a fictional version of yourself. In J"RPG"s, you're controlling J. Random Douchebag. In WRPGs you are controlling you're own digital creation that is your stand-in for yourself.

Since when? RPG's have always been about creating a character for the world. Right back to the Blackmoor campaign they aren't a representation of the player, the whole point is to be somebody else with their own strengths and weaknesses.

It's your idealized self. It's the person you WANT to be.

No, no they aren't. Do the people who play an evil character in Morrowind really want to be a demon worshipping assasin? Do the people who do low Int runs in Fallout want to be drooling idots? Do the people who play CoC want to be helpless pawns driven mad by god-like monsters? Do eople who play sorcerorsin Carcosa want to be paeophilic psycopaths? No, no a thousand times no.

You could probably actually make a great case study on the psychological implications of choosing your characters in RPG's. I personally am under the belief that people choose their characters and actions in these games based on real life desires, to an extent. That's not to say that any-one who chooses to play an evil role in a game and slaughter innocents by the bucket load really wants to take a machete and literally cut loose in a town square... although I'm sure there are some that do. But it definitely does say a lot about you. Whether it be you're a psychopathic mass murderer in the making, or someone who treats RPG games as a chance to be a character you could never be in real life.

I play on a RP realm in WoW.
I play table top DnD.
I role play in RPG's. (by that, I mean, I try to make choices on what my character would do, not what is game mechanical better. For example wearing slightly less effecive armour, because it looks better.)

And I never based a character on me, or what I want to be.
I base them on their backgrounds.
My Dragonborn fighter is a proud honourable, but slightly dim witted protector of the weak.
Why? is there a deep psychological reason? No, because that's how I see a Dragonborn fighter.

My undead warlock in WoW is a selfish bastard, who is continuesly looking for ways to entertain himself.
Again, because that's how I view a person could act when gifted with eternal life and fel corruption.

It has nothing to do with me, or my personally, just as much as Jack Sparrow has nothing to do with Johnny Depp.

 

[Axolotl]

-snip-

But even then if your playing a chacter you want to be (a point I still disagree with) they still aren't you and thus the capabilities should be determined by the character's skills and not the players.

 

[NeutralDrow]

IMO how you differentiated NetHack and Mass Effect apart from eah other was by their gameplay, not the genre.

That's what defines a game genre. It's why shooters, platformers, and fighting games are considered different genres.

I thought it was because there are different points and reasons to play the game in every one of them...

Shooters - you go around shooting things, that's the most important thing.
Platformers - you go around, jump from platforms and defeat enemies, story is only a minor thing here.
RPGs - story and assuming the skin of another character is the most important.

"Points and reasons" shouts gameplay to me. Just because Prince of Persia and Super Mario Brothers have a decided gap in storytelling doesn't mean the latter is more of a platformer than the other. People not like me who totally ignore the lore in World of Warcraft doesn't make it any less of an RPG. I can race through levels really fast whether I'm playing Sonic the Hedgehog or Gran Turismo, but the former is a platformer and the latter is a racing game. I can fight enemies one-on-one in Devil May Cry or Tekken, but the former is a complicated mix of action, platforming, and puzzles, while the latter is a pure fighting game.

All depends on how it's set up to play.

 

[veloper]

It's too late to try and define crpgs.

Sub-genres are the only meaningful way to categorize games now.