What is a RPG?

[Joccaren]

Under your rules for role-playing as a character, you role-play in every game that has a controllable character. You role-play as Batman in Batman AC, then you would role-play as Lara Croft in Tomb Raider, Mario in SMB, etc. Then, Batman AC is an action RPG since player skill is involved. Now, if Batman AC were to have turn-based combat (removing player skill), it would be basically exactly on par with a Final Fantasy game in regards to how much of a RPG it is as Batman has health and armor to level up, and lots of abilities to gain.

Batman is either an Action Adventure game with RPG elements, or an Action Adventure-RPG Hybrid game, dependent on how much you think the emphasis was put on its RPG elements. In Arkham City, the emphasis is on the combat and exploration of the city. Levelling is treated pretty much as a side thing, and as a reward for doing more within the game. That is the way it should be for a levelling system honestly, but that also leaves it with only a thin thread holding it to RPG.

A Final Fantasy game is akin to watching a movie but where you are allowed to then control the character between scenes as you can decide where to go and you fight in combat only until you get to the next point that triggers a cut-scene. That is not role-playing in my book.

I guess this would depend which JRPGs you play. The main thing with things like the Final Fantasy games, at least the earlier ones, is where is the emphasis? Is it on the cutscenes, or is it on managing your items, your levels, your stats, and the other RPG elements in the game. This puts them as not only more of an RPG than Arkham City, but I'd say more so than Skyrim too.

Playing a role (being Batman or Mario) is different from role-playing a character. Christian Bale plays Batman in the Batman movies. If Christian Bale were to dress up as Batman and act like Batman out in public with no script, he'd be role-playing as Batman. Playing a role and role-playing a character is a big difference to me.

Really, dressing up as Batman and acting like him in the streets in precisely what you do in Arkham City when not inside one of the mission specific areas. You glide around taking down thugs you want to, solving Riddler's puzzles, accepting distress calls - the only thing missing is those real life people staring at you with an odd expression on their face because you're running around town in a pair of tights acting like someone in dire need of psychological treatment.

From Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_play]:
A role-playing game is a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterisation, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, they may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

When you role-play, your choices affect the direction and outcome of the game. In Batman AC, the only thing that I am in control of is if Batman lives or dies, I have no way of changing the direction of the game or the outcome either. Just like any Final Fantasy game, which is why they aren't RPGs. In Mass Effect 2, I am able to affect the direction and outcome of all the loyalty missions. You have much less ability to alter the path of the main storyline, but you get some choice like do you blow up or keep the Collector ship, that will definitely alter things even if the ending is still the same result.

What this means is that we must have a quantifiable line of 'Affects the direction and outcome of the game' that playing a role must meat in order to qualify as role playing. You quantify this line as being in control of more than just whether [character] lives or dies. By deciding whether the character lives or dies however, you have already achieved a greater level of control than any other medium - and gained the capacity to change the outcome of the game. In a movie, you cannot change how it will end. When playing any game, you can change how it ends. You die, it ends differently to if you survive and finish the game.
Granted, in games like Batman there is not a lot of ability to change the direction of the game, other than a sudden turn to death, but there isn't a ton of that in Mass Effect 2 either. The direction of the game is always towards attacking the collector base. Now, add in Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, and there may be some more of that if you include the series as one big RP (Which I would argue it should be: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts), but as of yet we have no idea whether it will or won't.
I ask you, why do you quantify the line as being able to change more than whether the character lives or dies? Other than you just don't feel like its role playing, I would like to hear your perspective on the matter.

LARPing is a GAME because LARP is an acronym for Live Action Role-Playing Game, it's just that they took out the "G" to make the acronym. Here's the Wiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larp] stating that LARPing is a game as LARPing is definitely different from say being in a Ren fair as there are winners and losers when you LARP because it's a game.

LARP is a hybrid of RPG and Action Adventure.
Fests tend to fall closer to action adventure, and there are even small linear LARPs where the PC will undergo challenges from NPCs, and are tightly planned. In events like these, there is little outcome your character will have on the outcome of the story, nor the direction of it. The outcome you'll have in a fest is going to be similar to the outcome you'd have in a match of BF3 online with voice chat over teamspeak.
Freeform LARP is basically RPG, but LARP encompasses more than just freeform; fests and linear LARPs are a part of it too. Check your same link if you don't believe me.
I will, however, admit that it may be fairer to judge each LARP individually as too how close it is to pure RPG than as a whole genre, as really it depends which style of LARP is being referred to as to what the answer will be.

I'm not saying a video game has to have skill, there's lots of games without skill like Sim City. I'm just saying player skill is almost always part of a video game as probably well over 90% of video games involve player skill. It would just be natural to add in player skill to a video game version of something (a RPG) that was originally non-skilled based because the other medium's limitations (table-top gaming). Even games like Heavy Rain that are basically video game movies add in some player skill into the game.

Natural, but not necessary. This is where it falls to the not-yet-quantified RPG with X elements or X with RPG elements line [I really got to quantify that some time]. Some games with player skill I would accept to be RPGs. Take Fallout: New Vegas. Your skill determines success in actions like combat, but the rest of it is pretty much RPG. Take Skyrim, and your skill enables everything. NV at least limited skill in some cases - such as lockpicking. There is little role playing, and none outside the guild quests and one or two Daedric quests. In NV, your discussions with your companions provided such an opportunity. Both included an inventory, and both included levelling.
Pure RPGs will not have player skill. Hybrid RPGs may have some. How far that hybrid goes along the 'RPG with X elements, RPG-X Hyrbrid or X with RPG elements' bar will depend on how well it sticks to not only that RPG element, but also to the others.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

What this means is that we must have a quantifiable line of 'Affects the direction and outcome of the game' that playing a role must meat in order to qualify as role playing. You quantify this line as being in control of more than just whether [character] lives or dies. By deciding whether the character lives or dies however, you have already achieved a greater level of control than any other medium - and gained the capacity to change the outcome of the game. In a movie, you cannot change how it will end. When playing any game, you can change how it ends. You die, it ends differently to if you survive and finish the game.

Granted, in games like Batman there is not a lot of ability to change the direction of the game, other than a sudden turn to death, but there isn't a ton of that in Mass Effect 2 either. The direction of the game is always towards attacking the collector base. Now, add in Mass Effect 3 when it comes out, and there may be some more of that if you include the series as one big RP (Which I would argue it should be: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts), but as of yet we have no idea whether it will or won't.

I ask you, why do you quantify the line as being able to change more than whether the character lives or dies? Other than you just don't feel like its role playing, I would like to hear your perspective on the matter.

If you consider having say over the main character living or dying role-playing, then 99+% of games are RPGs then. And, dying doesn't change the outcome of a game unless you literally stop playing the game after you die. Batman AC still ends the same way regardless of whether you die 100 times or never die. You can't alter Batman's fate or any other character's fate at any point in the game. You actually have more role-playing to do as Catwoman than Batman because there is a different ending depending on what you do as Catwoman (although it's more of an Easter egg than anything). If there was a game that played out exactly like Die Hard, the game would still end exactly like the movie; John McClane would forget his shoes, Hans Gruber will be looking for his detonators, etc. Even with the control and interactivity given to the player, almost every game plays out just as a movie does. You don't really have a say in anything. Giving you control and interactivity does not unequivocally result in role-playing. In Heavy Rain, death actually changes things and has consequences because if a character dies, the game continues on. Heavy Rain is actually kind of close to being a role-playing game, it would need much more dialog choice as it already has pretty good story choice for a video game.

Even though in Mass Effect 2 you have to go to the Collector ship, having the decision to destroy it or keep it is a big choice. And, you decide how all the loyalty missions end. Also, you can actually make your own Shepard character arc in Mass Effect. If you are being too nice and get screwed over one time too many, that becomes a turning point for your Shepard to stop taking crap and being more of a Malcolm Reynolds type character via the Renegade options. That character development was all you and it wasn't scripted by the game. Same thing goes for the love interests as well, there will be that moment where you feel a certain character and Shepard just click and you decide that romance. You decide how Shepard interacts with all the NPCs as well. You shape Shepard into who he/she is and not the script. In Batman AC, you are Batman, there's no shaping of the character to be done for you. There is even a point in Batman AC where there's a pretty big decision to be made, but you have no choice in the matter. Hell, Batman himself doesn't even get to make the choice.

Pure RPGs will not have player skill. Hybrid RPGs may have some. How far that hybrid goes along the 'RPG with X elements, RPG-X Hyrbrid or X with RPG elements' bar will depend on how well it sticks to not only that RPG element, but also to the others.

I don't understand your obsession with the term pure RPGs. Everything changes as time goes on. To only call a RPG that is exactly what the very 1st RPG was a pure RPG is dumb. Everything evolves over time, football is a much different game than how it started out, the point is to keep the core components. And, that's like saying every Metal Gear Solid after the 1st game is not pure MGS but hybrid MGS. The 1st MGS was limited by the hardware at the time, and now MGS controls like a full-on 3rd-person shooter. MGS4 is not hybrid MGS, it's just plain MGS. The core of a RPG is the role-playing, emphasis on role-playing is all a RPG needs to be a RPG. A 1st-person shooter just needs a 1st-person perspective and an emphasis on shooting, it doesn't matter if it's exactly like the very 1st FPS.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

"the point is to keep the core components"

OK. What's the most important component in games ? GAMEPLAY.

They failed on the most important element.

No need to over analyze. It ain't brain surgery.

Walking around talking to people is gameplay, I guess adventure games don't have gameplay then according to you. Making decisions is also gameplay. A RPG where there is gun combat is going to be different in gameplay from a RPG where the combat is using swords and shields, especially if neither game uses turn-based combat. One of the best parts of a RPG is learning its unique systems.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG. It's a Third-Person Action Adventure game. Developers just want to call their games "RPG's" because they don't want the kiddy stigma of being thrown into the "adventure" genre.

Mass Effect 2 had Shooter Elements, and then it had Adventure game dialog & explore elements. It didn't have all the required elements for it to be an RPG, but it did have what was required of an adventure game. Adventure is also a much broader classification, and always has been.

Just cause RPG means Role Playing Game doesn't give every game the right to classify itself as part of the genre. By that definition, pac man was a roleplaying game.

Mass Effect 2 has more role-playing than the entire Final Fantasy series. Adventure games are you just going up to people and talking to them, everything is scripted, you don't choose what to say. In Mass Effect 2, you are allowed to steer conversations, punch people even. You can't do that in adventure games. Role-playing is the only requirement for a game to be a RPG. And, if you read through my initial post, very few video games would be considered RPGs under my criteria because there's actually very few video games that focus on the role-playing; Mass Effect is one of them.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Ok, i should say combat then. They changed it from being about tactics, dice rolls and characters skills, to a players twitch skills, which every other damn game is about. (besides your strategy games and things like that)

Obviously to try and get FPS and action fans to buy the games. Look at Skyrim, it sells like crazy because it's really a FPS action game with a RPG 'coat of paint'

True RPGs aren't about the players skills and reflexes.

RPGs don't need combat, you can gain experience and not kill things you know. RPGs were created in the table-top gaming medium, that medium has a physical skill limitation. Whereas in the video game medium, physical skill is a natural part of it. RPGs moving from a medium where physical skill is absent to a medium where physical skill is a natural component are naturally going to change and adopt the new medium's characteristics. If there is a football table-top game (and there probably is), that game is not going to require any physical skill.

 

[veloper]

I've simply stopped labeling games as RPG or WRPG. It's not descriptive anymore.

Use sub-genres instead: RPShooter, tactical RPG, SRPG, JRPG, FPL(diablo-clone), roguelike, action-RPG.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

This thread is full of so much fail in the OP I want to smash my fist threw my laptop, reach through the internet slap them and then direct them to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game] page. You went through all that for a definition and came up with the wrong wiki page(lol wiki for research) what kinda research is that?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG. It's a Third-Person Action Adventure game. Developers just want to call their games "RPG's" because they don't want the kiddy stigma of being thrown into the "adventure" genre.

Mass Effect 2 had Shooter Elements, and then it had Adventure game dialog & explore elements. It didn't have all the required elements for it to be an RPG, but it did have what was required of an adventure game. Adventure is also a much broader classification, and always has been.

Just cause RPG means Role Playing Game doesn't give every game the right to classify itself as part of the genre. By that definition, pac man was a roleplaying game.

Mass Effect 2 has more role-playing than the entire Final Fantasy series. Adventure games are you just going up to people and talking to them, everything is scripted, you don't choose what to say. In Mass Effect 2, you are allowed to steer conversations, punch people even. You can't do that in adventure games. Role-playing is the only requirement for a game to be a RPG. And, if you read through my initial post, very few video games would be considered RPGs under my criteria because there's actually very few video games that focus on the role-playing; Mass Effect is one of them.

And I happen to disagree with your criteria. I still haven't heard why your interpretation of what a RPG is is different from everyone else's.

 

[CRAVE CASE 55]

A Rocket Propelled Grenade Of Course!

Wait the OTHER RPG oh I would call that any game with Role Play in general

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And I happen to disagree with your criteria. I still haven't heard why your interpretation of what a RPG is is different from everyone else's.

My criteria just requires a focus on role-playing. Obviously my interpretation has to be different from others since I don't consider games like Dark Souls or Final Fantasy to be RPGs.

RPGs without ANY combat are adventure games.

That's not true, adventure games have no role-playing and there's table-top RPGs with no combat, just role-playing.

 

[Tiger Sora]

This is an RPG.

But about the game genera. The dozens of answers before this have done what I need to say.

 

[Imbechile]

What is a RPG?

To me RPG's are where your character skills, and not yours, determine the outcome(Fallout 1, Baldur's gate, Arcanum)
When there is a mix between your and your character's skills those are action-RPG hybrids(Deus ex, System shock 2)
When your skills govern the success then that's an action game with RPG elements(Deus ex Human revolution, Mass Effect 2)
Shaping your character doesn't mean a thing(Temple of Elemental Evil and Icewind Dale don't let you do that). Mass effect IS an action game with RPG elements, not a real RPG.

Simple as that.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

To me RPG's are where your character skills, and not yours, determine the outcome

I don't understand how that is your criteria as that does not consist of role-playing. Then, any strategy game is a RPG. Why can't a role-playing simply just have to focus on role-playing and nothing else? Shooters need shooting, platformers need platforming, RPGs should need role-playing. Why call it a RPG if role-playing isn't even part of the game? Call it a tactical combat game or something.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

To me RPG's are where your character skills, and not yours, determine the outcome

I don't understand how that is your criteria as that does not consist of role-playing. Then, any strategy game is a RPG. Why can't a role-playing simply just have to focus on role-playing and nothing else? Shooters need shooting, platformers need platforming, RPGs should need role-playing. Why call it a RPG if role-playing isn't even part of the game? Call it a tactical combat game or something.

Well, a great number of us RPG players don't need the game to have any role-playing as you describe it. Now I know why I asked that question. You are presenting your opinion as if it is fact.

 

[RandV80]

You don't really need to try and define it, RPG is just a genre title, rather just take some history into account. I'm not an expert or anything, but I believe it goes something like this...

From the start a video game RPG took it's origins from pen & paper role playing games, specifically Dungeon's & Dragons. The technology of the time could in no way re-create a true p&p experience, so some liberties had to be taken. While the very first Western and Japanese RPG's were actually quite similar, as the developers and technology improved Western developers stayed in the D&D influence, while the Japanese had no such background and expanded out in their own direction, adding manga and anime influences in pretty much as soon as they could. Another distinction that should also be noted, console and console games in the 80's and 90's were primarily developed in Japan, so the JRPG's were just known as RPG's on the console. Meanwhile the Western developers were making RPG's for PC so these were known as CRPG's.

Everything changed this past decade though when Microsoft entered the console race, and brought the CRPG developers to the console. Before that I don't think anyone really cared about the question "what makes an RPG?", they just were what they were. But now you started getting the Japanese games right alongside the Computer games both calling themselves "RPG's", and it left the new generation of gamers confused. That's why we now make the distinction of JRPG and WRPG.

 

[Imbechile]

To me RPG's are where your character skills, and not yours, determine the outcome

I don't understand how that is your criteria as that does not consist of role-playing. Then, any strategy game is a RPG.

Read my post again. I said character. In a strategy game you control an army, an expendable one that can't grow in stats, nor do the units feature any variety. A unit that is called a blue tank is constant. You will never produce a weaker or a stronger version of the blue tank, and neither can blue tanks specialise in diffrent things.

Why can't a role-playing simply just have to focus on role-playing and nothing else? Shooters need shooting, platformers need platforming, RPGs should need role-playing. Why call it a RPG if role-playing isn't even part of the game? Call it a tactical combat game or something.

Role playing involves stats. Mass effect lets you play a role, therefore it is some type of RPG. Since your skills decide the outcome, it's an action game with RPG elements.

Role-playing video games have it's roots in tabletop RPGs, and, since in tabletop RPGs your character skills determine the outcome, true RPGs are the ones that put the emphasise on you character skills.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Well, a great number of us RPG players don't need the game to have any role-playing as you describe it. Now I know why I asked that question. You are presenting your opinion as if it is fact.

The topic should be discussing what is role-playing? Once you have a definition for it, you have the core component of what makes up a RPG. I don't understand how RPG players can be considered RPG players when you don't play games with role-playing. That's like calling yourself a baseball player when you don't play baseball. Or not requiring a platformer to focus on platforming; us platformer gamers don't need the game to have platforming. When a game just had combat and no role-playing, it was called a wargame. Then, when someone added in role-playing (basically what I described in the initial post), the games took on the name of RPGs; that is a fact.

From the start a video game RPG took it's origins from pen & paper role playing games, specifically Dungeon's & Dragons. The technology of the time could in no way re-create a true p&p experience, so some liberties had to be taken. While the very first Western and Japanese RPG's were actually quite similar, as the developers and technology improved Western developers stayed in the D&D influence, while the Japanese had no such background and expanded out in their own direction, adding manga and anime influences in pretty much as soon as they could. Another distinction that should also be noted, console and console games in the 80's and 90's were primarily developed in Japan, so the JRPG's were just known as RPG's on the console. Meanwhile the Western developers were making RPG's for PC so these were known as CRPG's.

You are right about the history. I don't think the limitations of early video game hardware should cause a genre to change into something it's not. Those early games should not have been called RPGs. If you are going to strip out what is the crux of the genre, then it is no long that genre anymore.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Well, a great number of us RPG players don't need the game to have any role-playing as you describe it. Now I know why I asked that question. You are presenting your opinion as if it is fact.

The topic should be discussing what is role-playing? Once you have a definition for it, you have the core component of what makes up a RPG. I don't understand how RPG players can be considered RPG players when you don't play games with role-playing. That's like calling yourself a baseball player when you don't play baseball. Or not requiring a platformer to focus on platforming; us platformer gamers don't need the game to have platforming. When a game just had combat and no role-playing, it was called a wargame. Then, when someone added in role-playing (basically what I described in the initial post), the games took on the name of RPGs; that is a fact.

From the start a video game RPG took it's origins from pen & paper role playing games, specifically Dungeon's & Dragons. The technology of the time could in no way re-create a true p&p experience, so some liberties had to be taken. While the very first Western and Japanese RPG's were actually quite similar, as the developers and technology improved Western developers stayed in the D&D influence, while the Japanese had no such background and expanded out in their own direction, adding manga and anime influences in pretty much as soon as they could. Another distinction that should also be noted, console and console games in the 80's and 90's were primarily developed in Japan, so the JRPG's were just known as RPG's on the console. Meanwhile the Western developers were making RPG's for PC so these were known as CRPG's.

You are right about the history. I don't think the limitations of early video game hardware should cause a genre to change into something it's not. Those early games should not have been called RPGs. If you are going to strip out what is the crux of the genre, then it is no long that genre anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game
Not really. Video game RPGs never focused on role-playing. That is a fact.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

D&D originated from wargames which was a tactical combat game. So that was the base to build upon. Everything was built around the rules and combat.

DnD wouldn't be a RPG without the role-playing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game
Not really. Video game RPGs never focused on role-playing. That is a fact.

1st paragraph from the Wikipedia link:
Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) are a video game genre with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games[1] such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.

Combat is not even mentioned in the description of a video game RPG. That description also includes "player character development." Therefore, the player is responsible for character development, not the script. Leveling up a character's stats and skills is consider character advancement.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

D&D originated from wargames which was a tactical combat game. So that was the base to build upon. Everything was built around the rules and combat.

DnD wouldn't be a RPG without the role-playing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_video_game
Not really. Video game RPGs never focused on role-playing. That is a fact.

1st paragraph from the Wikipedia link:
Role-playing video games (commonly referred to as role-playing games or RPGs) are a video game genre with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games[1] such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.

Combat is not even mentioned in the description of a video game RPG. That description also includes "player character development." Therefore, the player is responsible for character development, not the script. Leveling up a character's stats and skills is consider character advancement.

This is just going in circles. Lets agree to disagree. This is where I would point out early RPGs and you would present a counter argument....we aren't changing the other's opinion. I just ask that you stop presenting yours as fact.