RPGs: Real or not?

[ShakesZX]

My question is this. In the current state of gaming, how many "true" RPGs are there?

By my definition, a RPG is not merely a game where you level up a character, or upgrade his/her skill sets (Darksiders, Borderlands, etc.). A RPG is a game where the decisions you make as a character actually affect the game. For example, Dragon Age would be an RPG because decisions you make affect what experiences you have with the game.

I would also say that games such as Final Fantasy would not be RPGs because, while different playstyles might be available depending on choices made through upgrading, there is no direct difference to the game whether you choose to be a healer or a fighter.

I would go so far as to say that Dead Rising is more of an RPG than any Final Fantasy game. In that game you can choose many different paths for your character. You will always be Frank West in the game, but what kind of Frank West will differ. You could play as a benevolent West, choosing to Rescue victims in lieu of solving the mystery. Or you could be a bastard West, leaving people to their fates while trying to stem the Zombie outbreak. Or you could choose to be neither and play as a completely different character. After all, all these different paths even have their own ending. (A rarity for games.)

I would like to hear some other thoughts on this subject.

 

[Crossborder]

I agree on this. But there are different kinds of RPG's and there are hybrids. I guess the genre system is just broken.

 

[ShakesZX]

I think it's more of an over saturation of reviewers trying to take the east way out of an explanation. Who wants to explain what parts of a game there are whan they can simply say "It's an RPG" and be done?

I agree that there can be hybrids, and games can use elements/parts of other game styles.

 

[Weaver]

IMO most RPGs by your definition are on the PC as D&D like games with the qualities you're looking for have been being made for a long time on the PC. I doubt many of them would really be fun to play by todays standards, but they've been around for a long time.

 

[SantoUno]

I say a combination of the two. You can raise your character to whichever sort of manner you want while taking the role as a hero or someone who's vital task is to save the world or whatever.

I'm sure this definition could be applied to all games considered RPGS, while excluding those which are clearly not RPGs but might have some elements.

 

[Thaius]

Actually, what you're describing is the Western RPG. It's hardly the only "true" RPG.

Words take on different meanings as culture changes and advances. When video games were created, the term RPG had to change a bit to accommodate what video games were actually capable of doing at the time: so the term doesn't quite mean the same thing it did back when D&D was the only good example. If you want to be a language purist, that's fine, but the term means a bit more now.

Of course it does tend to be abused (Legend of Zelda is NOT an RPG, people, and just because Bioshock has RPG elements doesn't immediately qualify it as one), but it's not so narrow as you're presenting it.

 

[ShakesZX]

Well, not everyone has to like them. I however like the idea of what I do in a game affecting the future that happens in the same game. If I choose to not kill somebody, (or to kill, either way) it's fun for me to know that there are consequences for my actions.

As for RPGs by my definition, I was wondering what other people thought about that. I would like to know how people think I'm wrong, and people think I'm right. Or just wrong...

 

[FoolKiller]

I would also say that games such as Final Fantasy would not be RPGs

Well then... if you take one of the most basic and well-known RPGs and define it as not an RPG, then many games will not fall under the RPG label.

With the criteria you put forth, any game with various endings are RPGs which I most certainly disagree with. By your criteria, Kane and Lynch is more of an RPG than Final Fantasy.

Unfortunately, what you say doesn't define an RPG is actually what most consider the key feature in an RPG, and in this case, I agree with the majority.

 

[Pimppeter2]

The Elder Scrolls series

 

[SextusMaximus]

Dragon Age Origins has tons of content in and is definetly an RPG. Play that.

 

[Liberaliter]

For me, Bethesda's games - such as Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout 3 all feel like actual role playing games. Massive open worlds, choices and character progression and being able to immerse yourself in the world and its people.

 

[BENZOOKA]

Character progression, looting, upgrading gear, quests, exploring. If a game has a few those and some other RPG characteristics, then it's a RPG for me. Why should it be such a narrowly defined genre. I hate the genre system as a whole. Why can't those genre titles be used merely as guidelines for what the game/movie/music is about, and not fuss about if Maltese Falcon is film noir or neo noir. And I totally disagree with OP.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

The term 'RPG' is an obsolete reference to the pen&paper games they originated from. Many of the first RPGs were simply attempts to transfer some of those to an electronic medium, and they evolved from there. Some RPGs kept a fairly strong connection to their real-world counterparts (for example Baldur's Gate and the many other D&D games), others made up new systems that were still fairly grounded in ye olde P&P traditions (like Fallout 1&2), and others yet spiraled away from the core idea in various directions (like Diablo). Attempts to emulate the genre in Japan led to highly successful franchises like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy, but again they went in a different direction then the old P&P-based ones.

And nowadays, almost every game where you upgrade anything is said to be part RPG, or at least containing "RPG elements". In gaming lingo, "RPG elements" seems to imply any number of things, mostly somethign in the way of "there are things you can upgrade". Exactly what you can upgrade depends on the game (levels, stats, weapons, armour, skills, etc), but it's pretty clear that these games only have the vaguest connection to the P&P games the genre originated from. Saying that both have stats you can upgrade is like saying that grizzly bears and Robin Williams are both hairy, so Robin Williams is a grizzly bear.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that the term RPG doesn't fit in today's gaming landscape. There are too many subgenres with too many differences, there are elements of classic roleplaying in almost every game in existence, and the things most often associated with computer RPGs (stats, levels) aren't even present in many P&P RPGs. Not to mention that many self-proclaimed RPGs have almost nothing of what gives the genre its name: the ability to play your character's role. In most RPGs the role of your character is set in stone, and you merely guide him along his predetermined path. For example, Final Fantasy is no more roleplaying game than Call of Duty in this way.

If it were up to me, the whole genre would be split up in various ways, with each subgenre having its own non-confusion-inducing name. But since both the industry and us gamers have become so used to the current name, that will never happen.

 

[Therumancer]

As I mentioned not too long ago in response to "Extra Punctuation" an RPG is defined as a game where the abillities of the character you are the determining factor in gameplay rather than your own abillities. Mutant offspring like the "Action RPG" are attempts to try and continue this trend while having the player more involved. It's been a mixed bag of successes and failure, however there is a degree of deserved elitism attributed to RPG players, enough where pretty much everyone wants to be considered one to an extent. This leading to games like "Borderlands" which while including customization aspects, are totally dependant on the FPS abillities of the player. "Fallout 3" being perhaps the best attempt to compromise in recent memory, with the FPS aspects being largely based around stats, and including an option (VATS) to totally bypass any kind of reflex involvement at all. Borderlands basically being an attempt to make Fallout 3 for people who can't stand things like serious inventory management, attributes, die rolls, skill levels, or not being able to determine the outcome of things by twitching... or basically not an RPG at all.


The meaning of the term, which should be quite clear, seems to have gotten distorted for newer and (groan) the casual/mainstream gamer due to all kinds of games flashing the label "RPG" as a selling point even if they aren't even remotely RPG-like. Given a total lack of genere labeling enforcement in the industry the results shouldn't be considered surprising.

 

[Ham Blitz]

RPGs are Role Playing Games, where you assume the ROLE of the character you're playing.
By that definition, just about any game with a main character can be called an RPG.

Sonic the Hedgehog is an RPG because you assume the role of Sonic.

*shrug*
Just cuz you don't have complete control over every little detail of your character: hairstyle, fighting style, favorite food, length of johnson, etc, doesn't mean it's not an RPG?

I dunno, I think trying to classify things is pointless.
It may have worked back in the day when games were simpler and more easily distinguished. Nowadays it's no big deal to have a game with a little bit of everything.

I will have to agree with this. I thought rpg was originally used to define games in which you played a character and followed a story, thus playing a role in the story. Games like Pong, Tron, and most sports games don't fall into the category, though games like the Sonic games and Final Fantasy series do technically fall under the rpg category.
Now that most games assume a story though, it is almost pointless to try and classify rpgs, or at least a lot of games will be in that category.

 

[WillSimplyBe]

The term 'RPG' is an obsolete reference to the pen&paper games they originated from. Many of the first RPGs were simply attempts to transfer some of those to an electronic medium, and they evolved from there. Some RPGs kept a fairly strong connection to their real-world counterparts (for example Baldur's Gate and the many other D&D games), others made up new systems that were still fairly grounded in ye olde P&P traditions (like Fallout 1&2), and others yet spiraled away from the core idea in various directions (like Diablo). Attempts to emulate the genre in Japan led to highly successful franchises like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy, but again they went in a different direction then the old P&P-based ones.

And nowadays, almost every game where you upgrade anything is said to be part RPG, or at least containing "RPG elements". In gaming lingo, "RPG elements" seems to imply any number of things, mostly somethign in the way of "there are things you can upgrade". Exactly what you can upgrade depends on the game (levels, stats, weapons, armour, skills, etc), but it's pretty clear that these games only have the vaguest connection to the P&P games the genre originated from. Saying that both have stats you can upgrade is like saying that grizzly bears and Robin Williams are both hairy, so Robin Williams is a grizzly bear.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that the term RPG doesn't fit in today's gaming landscape. There are too many subgenres with too many differences, there are elements of classic roleplaying in almost every game in existence, and the things most often associated with computer RPGs (stats, levels) aren't even present in many P&P RPGs. Not to mention that many self-proclaimed RPGs have almost nothing of what gives the genre its name: the ability to play your character's role. In most RPGs the role of your character is set in stone, and you merely guide him along his predetermined path. For example, Final Fantasy is no more roleplaying game than Call of Duty in this way.

If it were up to me, the whole genre would be split up in various ways, with each subgenre having its own non-confusion-inducing name. But since both the industry and us gamers have become so used to the current name, that will never happen.

Exactly, What the Derpa-Derp Panda said. Don't argue over Nomenclature, it isn't worth it. Someone that doesn't consider a kind of RPG to be an RPG isn't any more right than someone trying to say that Third Person shooters aren't shooters because they are not the same as first person shooters.

 

[ShakesZX]

Actually, what you're describing is the Western RPG. It's hardly the only "true" RPG.

Words take on different meanings as culture changes and advances. When video games were created, the term RPG had to change a bit to accommodate what video games were actually capable of doing at the time: so the term doesn't quite mean the same thing it did back when D&D was the only good example. If you want to be a language purist, that's fine, but the term means a bit more now.

Of course it does tend to be abused (Legend of Zelda is NOT an RPG, people, and just because Bioshock has RPG elements doesn't immediately qualify it as one), but it's not so narrow as you're presenting it.

You're right. I am describing the western ideal of role-playing, but please forgive me as i was born and raised in the "west." As i said, this is just my opinion of the game archetype.

 

[dmase]

First all someone hasn't been listening to the new favorite thing to bash about rpg's. Moral decisions are stupid they give you three options and pretty much tell you there are only three ways to go with a bar that fill or unfills with a "karma like" substance. Evil, neutral, and good; I'm sorry but all of my rpg's had a linear story line before the ps3 and oblivion, yes there where sidequests but there was only one way to do them. Moral choice is some new twist which isn't bad but moral choice does not make rpg's... rpg's.

When they say role playing i think they mean your are immersing yourself in the role of the character. Technically using your thought of making decisions in game by just choosing where to put skill upgrades in like borderlands that classifies it as an rpg.

 

[Thaius]

Actually, what you're describing is the Western RPG. It's hardly the only "true" RPG.

Words take on different meanings as culture changes and advances. When video games were created, the term RPG had to change a bit to accommodate what video games were actually capable of doing at the time: so the term doesn't quite mean the same thing it did back when D&D was the only good example. If you want to be a language purist, that's fine, but the term means a bit more now.

Of course it does tend to be abused (Legend of Zelda is NOT an RPG, people, and just because Bioshock has RPG elements doesn't immediately qualify it as one), but it's not so narrow as you're presenting it.

You're right. I am describing the western ideal of role-playing, but please forgive me as i was born and raised in the "west." As i said, this is just my opinion of the game archetype.

As was I: you have nothing to apologize for. It's just that they're two different styles of RPG. Western ones focus more on player control of the character and story. Japanese RPGs focus less on that in favor of creating a more complex story: the more control you give to the player, htel less control you have to shape a good story. I do see what you're saying, it's just a cultural thing, really.

 

[Pegghead]

Oh god this is just like the zombie debate...

Can we just stop refusing to classify certain things that are similar to other things as those things and saying that people who think otherwise are uneducated on the subject? I mean you make some good points but it's not really that necessary.