Original Comment by: Ferrous Buller
http://ferrousbuller.1up.com
Julianne,
Uhhh, you realize that your three criteria describe most games, period, right? Let's take them one at a time:
"Player takes on the role of a single character or group of characters."
Should be obvious that the vast majority of games fulfill this requirement; only abstract games like Tetris arguably don't count. In a strategy game, I could claim I was "role-playing" as my army's (usually off-screen) commander, or "role-playing" every unit in the game. [In fact, the Fire Emblem games run with the former idea, having the characters directly address the player as their leader!]
"That character's or group of characters' can increase in power due to choices made by the player."
In a FPS, I pick up bigger guns; in a platformer, I gain new abilities (double-jump, head stomp, whatever); in an RTS, I gain access to more powerful units. In each case, my ingame avatars have "increased in power due to choices" I made.
Look at it this way: say in a game like DMC or GoW, my character earns skill points for kills, which I can then use to unlock special abilities between levels - hey, it's a character customization system, it must be an RPG! Now say we change things so I earn money instead of points and I spend them to buy new equipment, rather than unlock skills. Functionally, it's exactly the same, I've just changed the terminology. Is it still an RPG? If it is, does that mean any game where I earn money and can buy new stuff is an RPG?
"A storyline which the character may or may not directly impact by decisions."
Again, that's true of any game with any sort of narrative.
My point is your definition of "RPG" is far too generic, to the point where it's almost meaningless. While my personal definition of the genre is, in many regards, totally arbitrary (and very similar to yours), at least I have specific requirements which must be met. When I define (C)RPGs, I look at old-school games like Wizardry to see what common elements they have:
- Numerical representations of my characters' physical and mental abilities (i.e., stats, skill points, etc.), which - based on the rules of the game's mechanics - are primarily responsible for determining whether or not my characters are successful in their actions. [As opposed to an action game like GoW, where my skill with the controller is primarily responsible for determining how well I do; the character-customization system mostly just lets me tweak Kratos a bit.]
- Characters accumulate experience points over time for successfully overcoming in-game obstacles (i.e., combat, finishing quests, etc.), which are used in some fashion to improve the aforementioned numerical representations of my abilities (usually through either a fixed class system or a more dynamic skill-based system). These improvements are separate from the acquisition of money and/or better equipment, which also improve my characters. [To my mind, a "true" RPG incorporates both, but that's not a rule.]
- Furthermore, an RPG is structured in such a way that the player is required to "level up" their characters as the game progresses, in order to overcome the game's successive challenges. [Which is what leads to the dreaded yet all too common "level grind."] It should be possible to finish GoW without ever improving Kratos' abilities; it's just more difficult to do so. Good luck killing Werdna with a first-level party!
- Some form of overarching narrative - with a definite beginning, middle, and end - which provides the characters impetus to progress and which the player's actions ostensibly influence. In actuality, a lot of RPGs are quite linear in their narratives - either you advance them or you die or you're stuck doing nothing - which break the illusion of being "in control." But there's never any doubt about the fact the events of the game's plot revolve around your characters and their actions: you're the one beating Floozle and saving the world, no matter how artificial the conceit can get. [Your definition makes it sound like the characters can just be "along for the ride."]
Yes, my definition is similar to yours, but it's more specific. In particular, my first requirement specifies something of the nature of the game mechanics of an RPG; and my third requirement specifies something about how the game is structured and paced. There's no point in inventing classification systems if you don't impose some rigid rules on them.
Of course, from there you can cross-breed genres, blurring the lines. E.g., action-RPGs such as Diablo have stat-heavy character systems which have a major impact on gameplay; but because combat is real-time, gameplay depends much more heavily on your reflexes than, say, Wizardry does.
Which is a long-winded way of saying: action games like GoW borrow the concept of "character customization and improvement through experience" from RPGs, but that does not make them "true" RPGs themselves (or even action-RPGs, IMHO), any more than throwing in some sight gags suddenly turns "King Lear" into a comedy.
