What's an RPG? (Long article illiterates need not apply)

[Daria]

What Makes an RPGs? My criteria.

Just a few thoughts, on how I classify my games. Maybe this will draw a little pressure off Lendelin's thread, by providing a forum for the ongoing debate.

Introduction:
Most people probably picture tabletop roleplaying sessions as a party of uber-nerds sitting around the table in Vin Diesel's basement. Wearing novelty elf ears and wizards hats drinking mountain dew as they bewail over the death of their level 60 darkelf rangers. Is it any wonder that someone would naturally conclude that all fantasy themed videogames were RPGs? It's a dirty lie, and through the course of this thread I intend to propose a clearer explantion of the genre.

Roleplaying, in the real world is improvisation. The practice of actions and reactions. Business trainers frequantly use it as a tool to explore "real world" senarios. Couples may use it to explore their own sexual wants and desires under the guise of "being someone" else. As a game you can play it with a strict system of rules and limiations, or spontaneous session of practical make-believe. In all cases you're presented with a limitless number of variables and outcomes. Translated to videogame, the word ceases to make any sense. By it's very nature a video game can not be a "roleplaying" game. A programmer can only simulate the experience of roleplaying with a series of preprogrammed choices and a very limited number of outcomes. The games themselves are pale immitations of their big brother tabletop counterparts.

What Makes an RPG?
Stripped of any real freedom, you're left with a number of common characteristics that many RPGs share; an experience system, battle system, system of barter and trade, and exploration. A basic RPG should include these four charactertistics. Dragon Warrior, being the first console RPG ever created has the honor of being our example for the quisessential RPG. A first person perspective menu based battle system, a numerical experience system, shops, and a freeroaming overworld coupled with town-roaming in a populated universe. In addition there was an element of dungeon dwelving, a popular relic of the D&D era. This in a nutshell describes your basic traditional RPG.

For my next example I propose to use the RPG that everyone loves to debate doesn't exist. This game features a simple battle system, you press a button and the hero swings his sword, hopefully right into an oncomming monster. Experience is handled by life containers. The theory is simple, in Dragon Warrior you were presented with the illusion of limitless freedom. Save the main castle, there wasn't an area of the overworld that you couldn't physically walk to from the start of the game. However you also start off as a level 1 and are likely to get your ass kicked by wyverns the moment you cross a bridge. So you fight monsters and level grind to proceed. In this example the world map is again open to you from the start of the game, but again you're weak and will almost certainly die a merciless death should you stray too far off course. So you explore your environment, defeat dungeons and are awarded with more life for your accomplishments allowing the player acess to harder sections of the map. This I argue is a form of experience, it just isn't based on racking up numbers. In the end the same limit is achieved. Shop system? You kill enemies who may drop monies which can be spent on equipment and items ala Dragon Warrior. Exploration? The Legend of Zelda's central theme is exploration and discovery. And there you have it the classic module for the Action RPG.

This form of RPG can also be found on the famicom, but wasn't really available in the US until the 16bit glory days of the Genesis. Shining Force is best known for it's tactical battle system. Eliminating the crutch of the random battle, every skirmish in Shining Force is predetermined and presented directly on the overworld map. Characters are moved across a grid and suddenly it becomes important to consider placement and range. Experience is once again handled by killing bad guys and earning points towards that almighty level up. Shop system is again present, and enemies regularly drop gold and the occasional item. And now here comes the point that will seperate the Tactical RPGs from the plain old strategy games, exploration. In Shining Force there are real towns and environments to explore outside of battle. Most strategy games will replace this with menu based towns to purchase equipment, unlock quests, and usher you immediately into the next battle. They are not true RPGs. But they are fun to play, and chances are if you dig Shining Force you're probably into Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea. But for the sake of clarification they are strategy games as they contain no form of exploration.

This leaves us with our last form of RPG. Wizardry features a first person menu based battle system similar to the likes of Dragon Warrior. You will travel to towns and buy goods and equipment. You will gain levels by killing baddies, and you do little else besides explore a giant maze or series of mages while you kill shit. The Dungeon Crawler is the simplest RPG imaginable.

So there we have it:
(Traditional) RPG
Action RPG
Tactical RPG
Dungeon Crawler

these are your four basic RPGs and there are plenty of games that will mix and match these categories to create hybrid titles like Oblivion (action RPG/Dungeon Crawler), Ultima Exodus (Tactical RPG/Traditional).

What doesn't make an RPG?
This is the part of my article where we enter the realm of subjective classification. It's what stops us from lumping in the GTAs of the world with the Dragon Warriors. Sandbox games are a relatively new genre and I don't think they should be lumped in with Role-playing games. Without getting into what's a sandbox game, let’s just say if it's something other than an RPG then it can't also be an RPG. I think this also takes care of our dirty little imposter the Castlevania/Metroid type platformer with experience points. If it's a Castlevania game then it can not also be an RPG. This doesn't include spin-off titles such as Super Mario RPG which changes everything about the classic Mario game to make it an RPG, as Castlevania with experience points is exactly like Castlevania without experience points.

[James8BitStar]

Yep. you've pretty much wrote the perfect "Definition of an RPG" article. You should submit it to RPGFan.

I don't get one thing... what fool has debated that that particular type of RPG "doesn't exist"?

[Daria]

Yep. you've pretty much wrote the perfect "Definition of an RPG" article. You should submit it to RPGFan.

I don't get one thing... what fool has debated that that particular type of RPG "doesn't exist"?

Hmmm... maybe I worded that wrong. But many people feel that Action RPGs and Zelda clones are two different genres. And that Zelda in particular isn't an RPG.

[lendelin]

Holy Schmoly, Daria! Do you know what you get yourself into with this? :) debates, debates, debates...:)

I have to look very carefully at your article before I might respond.

This is actually a good undertaking, at one point we have to make more clarifications about the definitions of a RPG. Compliments.

Damn, girl, you have some guts! :)

[Skelix]

Ooh Ooh I'll be the first to attack, by what you said. Why wouldn't Castlvania: Symphony of the Night be an RPG?

By how I understood you justifying Zelda, Castlevania is just a side view action as opposed to top down.

Kill enemies for experience, if you don't grind enough you will most surely die.
Pick up objects/monies and trade them for stuff
Explore a map
And battle with various weapons (by punching buttons)

Not so much defending Castlevania, I don't know if I call it an RPG either.

I personally enjoy the more American-ized RPG's. The AD&D make a party of sword wielding fighters magic-users, clerics etc. But the graphics in the more anime RPG's are just awesome.

I think I'm more into the turn based RPG's.

Edit: Well I guess Zelda isn't really top down, but you know what I mean top down would be more PS2/Xbox Baldur Gate-ish.

[lendelin]

Stripped of any real freedom, you're left with a number of common characteristics that many RPGs share; an experience system, battle system, system of barter and trade, and exploration.
...
So you explore your environment, defeat dungeons and are awarded with more life for your accomplishments allowing the player acess to harder sections of the map. This I argue is a form of experience, it just isn't based on racking up numbers. In the end the same limit is achieved. Shop system? You kill enemies who may drop monies which can be spent on equipment and items ala Dragon Warrior. Exploration? The Legend of Zelda's central theme is exploration and discovery. And there you have it the classic module for the Action RPG.

The category 'exploration' is a dangerous one, I think, in particular with the broad definition of 'experience' in the case of action RPGs.

The simple increase of life units like in your prime example for an action RPG (Zelda) would open the door for the Onimushas and all the games of Devil May Cry. It is coupled with another broad requirement -- the combat system. As soon as you define it simply as one button-hit technique (one action with no delay) instead of a menu-driven combat system all action games with this sort of combat which fullfill the other categories fall in your definition of an RPG. The advantage: Alundra and Zelda are in the RPG genre, the disadvantage: the Onimushas and Devil May Cry games are in, too.

They have an increase in life and MPoints and strenght (weaponry) the more enemies you defeat, they have shops and a barter system (granted on screen, but Onimusha 2 even has a barter system located in towns where you can exchange items with certain characters, gain new ones, and combine them), and they fullfill all the other general categories.

I can't see the separation line to these kind of games which would also open the door for FF Dirge of Cerberus. Unless you'd argue that these games should be regarded as action/RPGs, of course.

...and if you use all of the above criterias, then...


Without getting into what's a sandbox game, let’s just say if it's something other than an RPG then it can't also be an RPG. I think this also takes care of our dirty little imposter the Castlevania/Metroid type platformer with experience points. If it's a Castlevania game then it can not also be an RPG. This doesn't include spin-off titles such as Super Mario RPG which changes everything about the classic Mario game to make it an RPG, as Castlevania with experience points is exactly like Castlevania without experience points.

...it is unclear how you can argue that Castlevania SOTN isn't an action RPG. Same goes for Castlevania II Simon's Quest. They have all of your required standards of an RPG. Why they should be excluded remains unclear. Again, the introduction of one-hit battle system with no delay instead of a menu-driven combat system makes them necessarily RPGs.

I think your gameplay standards for an action RPG are too broad. I knew why you did it, Zelda was and is a controversial case, and you like to include it.

My comments are not rhetorical or sharp disagrements, I just want to point to some potential weaknesses or clarifications. There are other points I want to make after I read it a second time more thoroughly.

Great attempt, Daria. The introduction is really nice and important. It makes clear why the often heard "if you play a role in a game it is an RPG" makes no sense and takes care of that.

I see the danger of too much inclusion of certain games because the four general necessary gameplay techniques are too broad, but it is a great start for a discussion.

At the end of the discussion with constructive criticism and improvements you could indeed think about to do something with this article. That isn't patronizing. Writing is re-writing. The smartest guys with the best articles go through a lot of revisisons until they get it right.

[Skelix]

So here's the real question, which I'm sure has been asked before is Link a RPG?




Edit: Sitting here, thinking about it I would say no. I'm going to cause trouble here, but I'd have to say I don't even believe the hack slash action games are RPG's. This would even throw out Diablo and clones (blasphemy you say).

I would say to be an RPG it needs to be turned based, if it has real time action it needs to be able to be paused to input commands. The only exceptions I can think of would be like Final Fantasy VII where even though it's kinda turn-ish if you don't enter a command the monsters will kill you.

I would call the non pause ones more Adventures than RPGs. Like Zelda would be a "fantasy action adventure" or something to that line.

[blissfulnoise]

So here's the real question, which I'm sure has been asked before is Link a RPG?

No, no, no, no, no, no, and no.

The Zelda series is firmly entrenched in Action/Adventure. Not Adventure, not action, not action/rpg, but Action/Adventure.

Like Super Mario Galaxy getting "Adventure Game of the Year" on these boards. SMG is clearly an action game; platformer to be more specific.

If I'm feeling bold enough I may try to do an article just like this for "Adventure" games as it's long past due.

[Skelix]

Yep Bliss, I was editing my post when you responded. Action Adventure I agree. What about the Diablo-ish games? Sure you pick up items and equip cast spells, have skills, get xp. But I think it's more action/adventure over all.

Bah what a complicated world we live in!

[Poofta!]

ill read this later, as its like 3 am, but ive always been interested in developing an actual criteria for whats an rpg and what is not.

daria and i are probably the biggest RPG collectors on this forum, i cannot speak for her collection, but i am sure it is vast, even may be larger than my own (over 300 easy, yet unnacounted).

so id like to say thanks. ill read and see what, if anything, i can add on.


for the record, i consider Zelda an action/adventure rpg... with no specific guidelines as to how i came to that conclusion. it just "feels" like an action adventure game with so many rpg elements that its closer to rpg than pure action/adventure.

castlevania games, to me are side scrollers action/adventure games with some rpg sprinkles...

a huge criteria for what can even be considered an rpg to me, was always the viewpoint. rpg *must* be isometric/bird's eye style... however i do leave room for FPRPGs (first person rpg)... although lately the line has been difficult to see with games like hellgate: london and even oblivion which seem and play more like shooters...
anyway, to me, a side scroller can never be an rpg... it can only have rpg elements.

[Skelix]

Yeah Hellgate is an interesting one, another Diablo really.

As for Oblivion just a second ago I'd say you were crazy its a RPG for sure. But change it to an isometric few as opposed to fps and it's another Diablo with a different inventory system.

So then all of these are hybrids, maybe to be a true RPG it needs to be party based? Otherwise if single character its more of an adventure game?

[emceelokey]

I remember when I worked at a game store someone asked if there were any new Role Playing games out and of course I pointed ot some Final Fantasy games and the typical stuff you would associate with the term "Role Playing", but he said no I'm talking about stuff like Counter-Strike. Then I was like "oh, shooters?" yeah but the Role Playing type where it's as if you're looking through your own eyes. Where you are the character. Of course in video game terms he was talking about a FPS but I couldn't disagree with him either, because you're essentially assuming the person your playing with no visual avitar on the screen. It's one ofthose things where you're either talking to someone that knows what you're talking about or has no clue.

[Skelix]

Yeah and Daria was talking about that earlier, you figure every game you're playing a role you wouldn't do in real life. Whether you're assuming the role of a captain of a ship or in your example a FPS character.

What I said earlier about a party based, that doesn't make it in all cases though, as to the example of the classic Dragon Warrior.

Now what about this thought, a true RPG is pretty much open to allow you to do what you want, where adventure game would be story driven. An adventure forces you down the path. A lot of the Japan RPG's you could argue do the same, but only in spots.

Or as opposed to the experience level up concept, overall an RPG has a more complex character development. Not just xp but stats, skills. The ability to play as you want. To have an original, unique character.

This would rule out more of your, I kill monsters they drop red orbs and my guys level up games. Hey your level 25 Alucard is the same as my level 25 etc.

OK now for me to get flamed... so I'm playing Enchanted Arms (ick!) right now. I don't really see it as much of a RPG. Sure I level up, but I purchase stronger moves for my guy. Your guy is going to look the same as mine, same skills same fire based attacks etc for the same level. Wouldn't this game be more of an adventure?

Sure you have limited free roam as you go from storyline to storyline, but nobody will really be unique. I can't choose different materias, skills, abilities etc.

[James8BitStar]

re: Adventure Games

When I think of adventure games I think of Zork, King's Quest, and Shadowgate. Thus it bugs me when people call Zelda an "adventure game."

Whoever writes the adventure game article, please PLEASE do not fall into the common trap of creating hardware-based subgenres ("PC Adventures and Console Adventures.") Nothing is more irritating and pointless than such a useless division.

re: Why Castlevania isn't an RPG

Honestly I think the OP covered it well. CV: SOTN isn't an RPG because its something other than an RPG.

Okay thats subjective, but that's how I approach the issue. When I first played SOTN there was absolutely nothing that made me feel like it was an RPG. It looked like a platformer, it played like a platformer, its a platformer. A platformer with an equipment subscreen and level-ups, but a platformer nonetheless. In fact even now, the thought of calling it an RPG doesn't even come to mind unless I will it to.

As for the oft-mentioned case of CVII: Simon's Quest... IMO that isn't even worth mentioning, because the gameplay really is only cosmetically different from CVI.

[lendelin]

re: Why Castlevania isn't an RPG

Honestly I think the OP covered it well. CV: SOTN isn't an RPG because its something other than an RPG.


This is like saying Mountain Dew isn't coffee because it is something other than coffee. OR

Folgers isn't coffee because it is something other than coffee.

Both are tautological explanations/definitions. The point is: WHY isn't it coffee? In order to answer we have to introduce criteria which define coffee. Daria's problem is that her criteria for RPGs make Castlevania SOTN and Castlevania II indeed RPGs. The reasoning why they shouldn't be regarded as action/RPGs are not clear.

Daria's lat paragraph (what is not an RPG) is the weakest one. To say something isn't an RPG because it isn't an RPG or never can be isn't enough. The introduced necessary standards for a RPG have to exclude games as RPGs...otherwise we remain on the level of subjective impressions and the entire article is obsolete.

[Trebuken]

Is Puzzle Quest and RPG then?

This is really beginning to sound like nothing is an RPG.

Oblivion is an RPG. You should start with games that are definitely ROG's and found their commonalities.

[blissfulnoise]

re: Adventure Games

When I think of adventure games I think of Zork, King's Quest, and Shadowgate. Thus it bugs me when people call Zelda an "adventure game."

You are correct. Traditional straight up Adventure games are like the above. More modern examples would be Hotel Dusk: Room 315, Indigo Prophecy, and Zack and Wiki.

Zelda, however, is Action/Adventure. The action elements are obvious enough. The Adventure elements spawn from using specifically purposed items to solve puzzles, exploration, and inventory management. I'd lump games like Castlevania II: Simon's Quest, StarTropics, Fester's Quest, and Okami into this camp.

Diablo is, by definition, an Action/RPG. As are games like Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Secret of Mana, and Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles.

So the next question is how/why is Zelda Action/Adventure and Secret of Mana Action/RPG? The differences are subtle but look at how combat occurs, it's heavily stat based, features a much more robust item management system, and gives you a variety of equally viable options to defeating foes. It's also decidedly more storyline driven.

While Diablo has a pretty shallow story (Diablo II corrected this somewhat); it's system of inventory management, character creation/unique abilities, and shop system drop it squarely in the Action/RPG camp.

Puzzle Quest is uniquish, but it's still just a Puzzle game. It does feature a lot of RPG elements (stat/level increases, itemization, grand story line) but it's ultimately just a method to get you from puzzle to puzzle. But if you were to call it a Puzzle/RPG, I wouldn't object.

Another side project from this thread would be for someone to come up with a "master" genre list. The core set of game genres that ALL games would primarily fit into.

[blissfulnoise]

a huge criteria for what can even be considered an rpg to me, was always the viewpoint. rpg *must* be isometric/bird's eye style... however i do leave room for FPRPGs (first person rpg)... although lately the line has been difficult to see with games like hellgate: london and even oblivion which seem and play more like shooters...
anyway, to me, a side scroller can never be an rpg... it can only have rpg elements.

That's a pretty narrow view. I couldn't see how anyone could not classify the Elder's Scrolls games as RPGs. They have nearly every criteria you'd want to assign to traditional RPGs. I suppose that a subgenre like FPRPG could certainly be established in it's place.

Hellgate, as Diablo before it, is an Action/RPG. You could call it an Action (FPS)/RPG or something like that; because the game does feature a 3rd person Diabloish view when not using ranged weapons.

Games like BioShock though fall into the established Action/Adventure (FPS/Adventure I suppose) so don't get trapped there.

[Gabriel]

Looking at it from another perspective, I think the problem is that a lot of games which aren't RPGs are being forcibly squeezed into the RPG genre by fans who perhaps want them to be labeled RPGs.

RPGs have:

1. An experience system to "level up" and improve your characters
2. A statistical system to make the abilities of the in-game character independent of the player's gameplay abilities.
3. Different items and the ability to equip and use a variety of things.
"Real World" activities, such as the ability to shop, go sleep at an inn, rest up between adventures.
4. Interaction with the other characters in the environment.* This is optional interaction, usually performed by walking up to the character in game and pressing a button to get a box of text. It is not mandatory cut-scene sort of interaction which always happens at a fixed point in the game. (* = Interestingly, this was a development not present in the earliest RPGs such as Wizardry.)
5. Have some sort of storyline which has meaning to the game in some way other than merely framing the action.
6. RPGs are turn based, or if they involve action, they are a real-time emulation of a turn based system. This is because RPGs are thought based instead of twitch based. RPGs test decision making abilities, not reflexes.

So, under those criteria:

RPGs:

Lost Odyssey
Shining Force
Puzzle Quest
Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar
Enchanted Arms
Final Fantasy VI
Bard's Tale 1
Eternal Sonata
Ogre Battle (while realtime, reflexes are not the primary factor being tested, decision making is the priority)
Growlanser Generations

Not RPGs

Warriors Orochi (no character interaction, no "real world" activities, not turn based)
Zelda games (not turn based, action more decisive than statistical system)
Castlevania games (not turn based, action more decisive than statistical system)
Super Paper Mario (not turn based, action more decisive than statistical system)
Culdcept Saga
Advance Wars
Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom
Elder Scrolls III: Oblivion
Marvel Ultimate Alliance

[carlcarlson]

One of the big requirements (for me) that makes a game an rpg is gaining experience to level up. This takes out Zelda. Yes, you obtain heart containers which grant you more life, but they aren't the same as experience. I'm going to have a hard time explaining this, but here goes. Lets say you can't beat the first boss in Final Fantasy. What do you do? You grind outside the castle until you are strong enough, and then go in and finish off the bad guy. Now let's say you can't beat the first boss in Zelda. What do you do? You go in and try again. You don't grind, because you could stand outside that castle killing monsters for the rest of your life and never get any stronger. When you get a heart container you aren't gaining experience, you are getting a reward for passing a stage.

One of your points is that both Zelda and Dragon Warrior are wide open at the beginning, and thus the character can go straight to the end. This is true, but the difference is that your DW character would die while Link could theoretically win. Your character in Zelda is just as strong at the end as he is at the beginning. He has more HP, but he hasn't upped any other stats. He could still take down Ganon (if it weren't for the equipment requirements) at the very beginning.

And yes, Oblivion is an rpg. I can't believe I just read otherwise. It's got 5 of the 6 criteria you mentioned. Not being turn based doesn't mean a game isn't an rpg. Hell, I'd say the Elder Scrolls games are some of the most hardcore (wow what a great term) rpgs I've played.

[roushimsx]

(snip)

What Makes an RPG?
Stripped of any real freedom, you're left with a number of common characteristics that many RPGs share; an experience system, battle system, system of barter and trade, and exploration.

(snip)

What doesn't make an RPG?
This is the part of my article where we enter the realm of subjective classification. It's what stops us from lumping in the GTAs of the world with the Dragon Warriors. Sandbox games are a relatively new genre and I don't think they should be lumped in with Role-playing games. Without getting into what's a sandbox game, let’s just say if it's something other than an RPG then it can't also be an RPG. I think this also takes care of our dirty little imposter the Castlevania/Metroid type platformer with experience points. If it's a Castlevania game then it can not also be an RPG. This doesn't include spin-off titles such as Super Mario RPG which changes everything about the classic Mario game to make it an RPG, as Castlevania with experience points is exactly like Castlevania without experience points.

I find the justification behind the experience system in Zelda to be pretty weak and I do not find hearts to be a valid substitution for experience. When you go out of your way to say that, "hey, hearts are a form of experience because you get them from completing levels" then you're opening the door for shit like, "Super C is an RPG because additional lives are a valid form of experience".

Also, it's odd that you elimitate games that do meet your four criteria for what makes an RPG simply because they incorporate additional elements into the gameplay. How can a Castlevania game not be an RPG if it includes:
A) Experience System
B) Battle System
C) System of barter and trade
D) Exploration

Simply because it's Castlevania and the first game was a side scrolling action game? What about Ys III, Exile, Sorcerian, or any number of other side scrolling RPGs? Why can't a game fall under the RPG umbrella along with other umbrellas? Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are both perfect marriages of first person shooters and RPGs with very little division between the two. They appeal just as well to anyone who wants an RPG with a bit more in the way of action as they do to someone who wants a first person shooter with a bit more in the way of depth and story.

When you say that something can't be an RPG along with being something else, then you're effectively saying "nothing can be an RPG". Everything is an RPG and something else. They're simply other games with additional depth through the addition of emphasis on statistics and experience.

For reference, here's some games that I feel meet the established criteria and some that I feel do not:

Meets
- Grand Theft Auto San Andreas: Open area for exploration, barter with NPCs for items or to obtain missions, third person combat engine, and the biggest addition to the series since going 3D: experience points.
- Deus Ex: Level up individual abilities, barter with NPCs, first person combat engine, freedom to accomplish missions in a variety of ways (the first mission alone has a minimum of three distinct paths depending on play style).
- Puzzle Quest: Experience point based character growth, shops, a world map to explore (though a bit less conventional than, say Final Fantasy), and a unique puzzle based combat engine
- Baten Kaitos: Experience points, shops/npcs, world map, card based combat engine. Yadda Yadda Yadda.
- Yakuza: Experience point based character growth, exploration throughout a detailed city, bartering with NPCs, and a separate realtime combat engine.

Does not meet
- Drakan: Does not have experience points and lacks shops or NPCs to barter with.
- Giants Citizen Kabuto: Lacks a barter system or experience point system
- Advance Wards: Lacks any experience system or barter system
- Heroes of Might and Magic: Lacks experience points or bartering. Strictly turn based strategy in a fantasy realm.
- Ghost Recon / Sum of All Fears / Rainbow Six: Sense of exploration on expansive maps, party management, experience/promotion/award system and real time combat, but lacks any sort of barter system.

[Gabriel]

I find the justification behind the experience system in Zelda to be pretty weak and I do not find hearts to be a valid substitution for experience. When you go out of your way to say that, "hey, hearts are a form of experience because you get them from completing levels" then you're opening the door for shit like, "Super C is an RPG because additional lives are a valid form of experience".


Like you, the main thing about the hearts in Zelda which strikes me as NOT being an experience system is because they are handled as items in the game.

Hit Points and Zelda hearts are the same mechanic, but look at how they are different.

In Zelda, hearts are either found in the countryside or as a specific reward for defeating a boss monster.

In RPGs, hit points are often awarded for gaining enough experience through any kind of battle to increase them. You don't need to find them in the countryside. You don't need to beat a specific monster in order to get them.

In Zelda, hearts are a powerup, not an experience system. If they are considered an experience system, then any game which has items which can be picked up for increased capabilities would be an RPG. Mario 3 would be an RPG. And that is clearly not the case.

[James8BitStar]

Looking at it from another perspective, I think the problem is that a lot of games which aren't RPGs are being forcibly squeezed into the RPG genre by fans who perhaps want them to be labeled RPGs.

That's true. Not only is the genre complicated to label but it seems like the special status that they had in the mid-1990s, where everyone thought you were superhuman if you played RPGs, has never really gone away.

Another problem though is that people are always inclined to put their own subjective views as part of the definition, views that don't work and cause open contradictions in both the definer's and the audience's intended views on RPGs.

For example, from this very topic I've seen people say that RPGs:
* Must be top-view (guess FF7 is only an RPG half the time)
* Must have a menu-based combat system (that removes Eye of the Beholder, Stonekeep, and the PC-based Ultima games)
* Must have a storyline "serves more purpose than just being a frame for the action" (that removes pretty much everything made before 1989)

This debate and the constant references to stats reminded me of an article I once posted back when I was a member of RPGFan. It kinda jives with what carlcarlson was saying. I'm gonna reproduce it wholesale here:

========================
Hope no one minds my random act of Necromancy, but I was just doing a late-night ramble on RPGs for an upcoming page and this was a part of it. And I'm kinda-half asleep so I hope this is coherent.

You know what? I think I figured it out.

RPGs should be called S&E (Statistic and Exploration) games.

All through writing this article I've been thinking of the question "What exactly defines an RPG?" and I realized it that, whether you're talking about PCs, Consoles, or pen n' paper, the common denominator is statistics.

But its not just that they're there, no. It's also a matter of degree. Like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. It has statistics, but your ability to beat the big bad monster has more to do with your hand dexterity than with Alucard's stats. In fact the best way to show my point is to point out an RPG with a real-time combat system: The Elder Scrolls: Arena. It's real time--no seperate battle scenes, you just use a button and the mouse to attack, sort of like a first-person shooter, however in a first-person shooter a hit is detected when sprites collide and Gun A always does # damage, in Arena hits are detected by offscreen die rollls independent of your physical distance and relevant only to your characters statistics, and damage too is calculated by a die roll which is based on statistics. That's why Castlevania: SOTN is not an RPG yet Elder Scrolls: Arena is. And that goes for any RPG across any system. I mean, try taking on Lavos with just Chrono, Marle, and Lucca, while they're below level fifteen. It can't be done--Lavos vaporizes you in three seconds. Because the game is stat-dependent.

But video games shouldn't really be called RPGs, because you're not really role-playing. Okay so you kinda are, but mostly to the same extent that you are in say Mario. So really all video games are RPGs. So why should only one subset of games get that moniker? I again say we should call them Statistic & Exploration games (or maybe even make two monikers--S&E for the more open-ended titles, and "Statistic & Storyline" for the more story-intensive games)

I should really go to bed.

[Looking at it again, Secret of Mana is also a good example in favor of this arguement--no matter how fast your hand dexterity is, its statistics and offscreen die rolls that determine things like whether you land a hit or are blocked and how much damage you do and you can't exactly step out of the way of upcoming attacks. Basically I'm saying an RPG is a game where much of the outcome of conflict situations depends on statistics and die rolls as opposed to the player's reflexes. Anyone think I may be onto something here?)
======================
[Original post on the second page of this topic (http://www.rpgfan.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1693&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15)]

Course, the problem with the above is that if RPGs are now going to be called S&Es, then Zelda is now an A&E. And nobody watches that channel for fantasy elf stuff.


Elder Scrolls III: Oblivion

Errr, Oblivion is Elder Scrolls *Four*

[Poofta!]

That's a pretty narrow view. I couldn't see how anyone could not classify the Elder's Scrolls games as RPGs. They have nearly every criteria you'd want to assign to traditional RPGs. I suppose that a subgenre like FPRPG could certainly be established in it's place.

Hellgate, as Diablo before it, is an Action/RPG. You could call it an Action (FPS)/RPG or something like that; because the game does feature a 3rd person Diabloish view when not using ranged weapons.

Games like BioShock though fall into the established Action/Adventure (FPS/Adventure I suppose) so don't get trapped there.

its just my view.as for the elder scrolls, no, they are ALL RPGs, except maybe oblivion... that game had less story and role playing elements than any of its predecessors. arena was an rpg, so was daggerfall. morrowind was an amazing, huge, story driven world RPG... oblivion was a beautiful console shooter with sword, sorcery and a TINY bit of lore.

[blissfulnoise]

[Looking at it again, Secret of Mana is also a good example in favor of this arguement--no matter how fast your hand dexterity is, its statistics and offscreen die rolls that determine things like whether you land a hit or are blocked and how much damage you do and you can't exactly step out of the way of upcoming attacks. Basically I'm saying an RPG is a game where much of the outcome of conflict situations depends on statistics and die rolls as opposed to the player's reflexes. Anyone think I may be onto something here?)

Very succinctly surmised. This is why I label Mana as an Action/RPG and Zelda as an Action/Adventure game.

Castlevania: SotN+, Metroid, et all are simply action games with RPG elements.

And anyone that doesn't see the Elder's Scrolls series as RPGs are distinctly, and unarguably, wrong. They are the very definition of RPGs with lineage going directly back to Wizardry.

[blissfulnoise]

I'm not entirely sure if you were actually making a case for the below games to be allowed into the RPG pantheon but I'll treat it as such and respond in kind.


Grand Theft Auto San Andreas: Open area for exploration, barter with NPCs for items or to obtain missions, third person combat engine, and the biggest addition to the series since going 3D: experience points.

The modern GTA series are anomalies as they spawned off a whole new type of game: the Sandbox game. While there are many RPG elements involved, each game ultimately divulges into a third person action game. The core of the game play experience is based around driving and shooting; not leveling up, acquiring equipment, and forming a party.

While there is probably a case to be made in there, objectively speaking, GTA:SA is not, primarily, an RPG.


Deus Ex: Level up individual abilities, barter with NPCs, first person combat engine, freedom to accomplish missions in a variety of ways (the first mission alone has a minimum of three distinct paths depending on play style).

Deus Ex (and Thief and BioShock) is a shooter first, adventure game second. The definition of "adventure games" has been broadened beyond Zork to encompass playstyles that fall between that of a standard action game and an RPG. While pure "Adventure" game definitions will always under the domain of Infocom, Sierra On-Line, and LucasArts; the hybridization of the genre allows us to lump a great number of games that contain action elements.

Cases in point: Snatcher on the Sega CD or Indigo Prophecy on the PS2/Xbox/PC.


Puzzle Quest: Experience point based character growth, shops, a world map to explore (though a bit less conventional than, say Final Fantasy), and a unique puzzle based combat engine

Tackled above.


Baten Kaitos: Experience points, shops/npcs, world map, card based combat engine. Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Baten Kaitos would be an RPG in my book. Cards are just substitutes for die rolls and equipment. Similarly, Phantasy Star Online Episode III.

Now a games like Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories and Culdcept Saga fall elsewhere due to play mechanics. CoM is an Action/Card game, and is pretty damn unique in the world of video games. Culdcept Saga is nothing more than a board game.


Yakuza: Experience point based character growth, exploration throughout a detailed city, bartering with NPCs, and a separate realtime combat engine.

See my above account of hybrid adventure games.

[Skelix]

I like Gabriel's breakdown. And yeah after thinking about it more I'm flip flopping back into the Action-RPG games are legit, so the Diablos, Elder Scrolls etc.

Because who cares if you're clicking the "fight" button, or pressing a mouse button to swing your sword. Combat rolls/stats/modifiers etc still happen and damage/outcomes are varied depending on skills stats.

OK how about this, most of the games we run it through a series of judgement calls, and form an opinion if its an RPG or not.

What of this, any game that fits most of the criteria given aboves (like in Gabriel's post). But is a game that was complex enough where you've gotten pen and paper out to map out skill points, character advancement etc.

And pen and paper don't count for making maps or writing down secret locations. You guys know what I mean, everyone has written down #'s to make their ultimate characters etc, that game then would be a RPG.

And to justify Enchanted Arms being an RPG, the Golems. Constantly figuring out which one to use in which situation etc.

Here's a game for you, Heroes Quest (Quest for Glory). I would call it strictly adventure, even though it has RPGish the RPG aspects aren't strong enough to allow it in the genre.

[roushimsx]

The modern GTA series are anomalies as they spawned off a whole new type of game: the Sandbox game. While there are many RPG elements involved, each game ultimately divulges into a third person action game.


Sandbox games are nothing new, with pen and paper RPGs being very much sandbox games. Plenty of PC RPGs, including Ultima 7, have been highly sandbox in nature. The Grand Theft Auto games might have originated as sandbox style third person action games, but they've been evolving back into RPGs, especially with the leaps that San Andreas made. While the previous games in the series might have been sandboxy action/adventure games, San Andreas "bridged the gap".


Deus Ex (and Thief and BioShock) is a shooter first, adventure game second.

Thief is different from Deus Ex and System Shock 2 in that it lacks the experience point and growth concept. I agree that it's a sealth-based action game above all else (and pretty much one of the highlights of the entire stealth action genre). Bioshock takes the System Shock 2 design and watered it down, but the core RPG elements are still there, all mish mashed with the action elements.

By your criteria, Diablo, Nox, Divine Divinity, and Sacred are all point and click action games first, adventure games second, and not RPGs at all.


The definition of "adventure games" has been broadened beyond Zork to encompass playstyles that fall between that of a standard action game and an RPG.

Well that's somewhat of a different topic, though. Sure, there's text adventures (Zork!), point and click adventures (Sam & Max!), parser-based adventures (King's Quest), and then the broadened action/adventure category (Little Big Adventure! Legend of Zelda!), but I think that it'd be incorrect to throw in games that clearly meet the criteria for inclusion under the RPG umbrella into the adventure bucket just because they have more action.


Now a games like Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories and Culdcept Saga fall elsewhere due to play mechanics. CoM is an Action/Card game, and is pretty damn unique in the world of video games. Culdcept Saga is nothing more than a board game.

Won't get any argument out of me on either of these. But by the same token, I wouldn't exclude Phantasy Star Online III or Baten Kaitos from a list of "Card games" just because they happen to also be RPGs.

[Sothy]

I cant define what an RPG is but I know one when I play one.

Yes Oblivion is an RPG. No Drakkan is not an RPG.

[Poofta!]

to clear things up quick: i consider all Elder Scrolls games RPGs, they are all desendants and contemporaries with the [as mentioned] Wizardry series, as well as Might & Magic, Betrayal at Krondor and many other greats of yore.

however, i feel oblivion strayed a little too far away from that norm, and closer to 'mainstream console' territory.

[blissfulnoise]

By your criteria, Diablo, Nox, Divine Divinity, and Sacred are all point and click action games first, adventure games second, and not RPGs at all.

All of those games rely on stats above all else in the game play experience. By that token, they do qualify as RPGs.

A Role-Playing game, in a video game sense, isn't necessarily incumbent on how it tells a story, or indeed the depth of the story at all. Instead, it's based around a numbers game mechanic where gradual stat growth/manipulation (normally identified through the process of "grinding") supersedes any sort of twitch based game play.

Thus, I categorize Diablo (et all) as an Action/RPG. Action being first (clicky, clicky, clicky), RPG second (minimize/maximize character growth EXCLUSIVELY through gear and skills).

And regarding sandbox games, yes, pen and paper RPGs are defined as the original "sandbox" games. But when translated into video-game form you can't draw the line quite so straight between the two.

The difference in a Grand Theft Auto III verses a game like Ultima is the nature of the game itself. Leveling up, party balance, and gear are the most important measures of success in Ultima. In GTAIII it's stocking up ammunition, driving fast, and shooting straight.

Clearly success in GTA is based around your ability to play a "twitch" style game. In Ultima it's about balancing out your characters properly and understanding where and what you can investigate based on your characters level. The differences between the two are clear.

RPGs/Sandbox games do typically offer an "open world" for you to explore but the difference is in how you explore said world. The similarities in Ultima and San Andreas pretty much begin and end there.

[j_factor]

I think people get way too complicated in the debate over what constitutes an RPG. It has to have these 14 aspects, except these two are optional in some cases, and it can't be X, Y, or Z. Jeez. Let's try to keep it simple.

...So here's my criteria. Heh. To me, for a game to be an RPG, it merely needs to have two things. Number one, a player character/avatar (or group) and NPC's, with player-initiated interaction (eg, walking up and pressing the talk button). Number two, a combat system involving some level of statistics, which are improved for the player via some mechanism derived from defeated enemies (usually experience points). An RPG is any videogame that has all of the above; a game can be both an RPG and of another genre.

I can't think of any games that meet this criteria that wouldn't naturally be considered RPGs, nor any games that would heinously be excluded.

[Gabriel]

I think people get way too complicated in the debate over what constitutes an RPG. It has to have these 14 aspects, except these two are optional in some cases, and it can't be X, Y, or Z. Jeez. Let's try to keep it simple.

...So here's my criteria. Heh. To me, for a game to be an RPG, it merely needs to have two things. Number one, a player character/avatar (or group) and NPC's, with player-initiated interaction (eg, walking up and pressing the talk button). Number two, a combat system involving some level of statistics, which are improved for the player via some mechanism derived from defeated enemies (usually experience points). An RPG is any videogame that has all of the above; a game can be both an RPG and of another genre.

I can't think of any games that meet this criteria that wouldn't naturally be considered RPGs, nor any games that would heinously be excluded.

So, let's say a football game came out which allowed you to talk to the coach for tips, or maybe talk with other players on the field or in the locker room (maybe Madden already does this, I don't know). Football games are already extremely statistic driven. It's not even a stretch to say the team you play in campaign mode is your player character avatar/group. Such a game would be an RPG by your definition.

Wizardry would not be a RPG by your definition. Because there is no direct interaction with NPCs. (Wizardry also has problems with my storyline criteria, so that needs work too.)

[James8BitStar]

Wizardry would not be a RPG by your definition. Because there is no direct interaction with NPCs. (Wizardry also has problems with my storyline criteria, so that needs work too.)

Well... Wizardry has shopping, and those "friendly" monsters you can either kill or avoid at risk of your alignment changing. I'm not sure if that counts though, since you don't really get any sort of info or anything from them.

Wizardry actually DOES have a storyline of sorts, but its very minimal and you don't really discover it unless you discover the secret elevator on the first level.

[debian4life]

What about Dark Cloud...I think RPG. Although, according to what we are saying here it could be action/adventure or strategy.

[Iron Draggon]

although I have no idea what other thread inspired this one, this is a very interesting topic... and I'd like to add that a few racing games with RPG elements meet your criteria as well... games like the Race Driver series come to mind... perhaps even some of the MMO racers meet all of the requirements also, but I don't play any MMO games, so I'm not very familiar with them... however, games like Test Drive Unlimited and Auto Assault come to mind...

A) Experience System (driver character skills improve by racing)
B) Battle System (each race is a battle, with or without weapons)
C) System of barter and trade (car upgrades can be bought or traded)
D) Exploration (racing environment can be explored)

so you see, your criteria leaves the door wide open for every game with RPG elements to be classified as an RPG... so my suggestion for your potential article is to define the difference between true RPG's and crossover hybrids... the RPG genre has been infiltrating other genres for a long time now, so you need to separate the pure from the mixed... but you'll have to be careful in doing so, because it could be argued that the entire SRPG genre is actually just the first of the crossovers... once upon a time, there were RPG's and strategy games, then one day someone figured out a way to combine them...

[Damaramu]

Oh yeah! I was just playing ChoroQ on the PS2. That's got some RPG elements for sure.

[Gabriel]

but you'll have to be careful in doing so, because it could be argued that the entire SRPG genre is actually just the first of the crossovers... once upon a time, there were RPG's and strategy games, then one day someone figured out a way to combine them...

There's certainly the argument that can be made that some Tactical RPGs are more strategy games than RPGs.

Most often, it's fairly clear the game isn't an RPG despite some similar characteristics: Romance of the Three Kingdoms by Koei or Commanders: Attack of the Genos for Xbox Live Arcade.

Other times, the question is a bit iffy. Is Wizard's Crown a RPG? More severely, is Roadwar 2000 an RPG? I'd say Wizard's Crown meets the minimum requirements for an RPG while Roadwar 2000 does not, although both lean toward the strategy component.

But, if you say games with tactical combat aren't RPGs, then you eliminate things like all the Gold Box Dungeons & Dragons games, not to mention absolutely definitive titles like Ultima IV.

Another thing to keep in mind is that CRPGs grew out of Pen & Paper RPGs. Pen & Paper RPGs grew out of miniatures wargaming (D&D was originally Chainmail, a miniature wargame expansion which added Tolkienesque elements to tabletop battles). So, if anything, games like Fire Emblem, Jeanne D'Arc, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Front Mission 3 are even more RPGs because they are embracing the actual miniature wargaming roots of the genre.

[Gabriel]

Wizardry actually DOES have a storyline of sorts, but its very minimal and you don't really discover it unless you discover the secret elevator on the first level.

The catch is that the storyline is so minimal that it seems to be "merely framing the action."

Then again, RPGs generally require some knowledge of the storyline to progress. If the requirement was that the storyline was integral to the conduct of the game itself, would that fix the criteria for Wizardry?

That doesn't help my tactical RPGs, though. I generally play all tactical RPGs by skipping past the story bits as quickly as possible. Considering so many TRPGs are rigidly linear doesn't help either. Shining Force II would still qualify as a RPG, but Shining Force 1 would not, as there is no requirement to know the storyline because the player is merely shuffled from one encounter to the next. I believe Fire Emblem would also fail the test.

[j_factor]

So, let's say a football game came out which allowed you to talk to the coach for tips, or maybe talk with other players on the field or in the locker room (maybe Madden already does this, I don't know). Football games are already extremely statistic driven. It's not even a stretch to say the team you play in campaign mode is your player character avatar/group. Such a game would be an RPG by your definition.

Hmm. I would say that wouldn't qualify as an RPG under my definition. Who is the player character? Generally, in a football game, you have control over the entire team during the game. So what "other players" would you talk to? The opposing team? That wouldn't really work because it would have to be at very scripted opportunities, making it not player-initiated.

A football game would only qualify as an RPG under my definition if you controlled the whole team as a group (party) in between games, and were able to move the group around in some setting and initiate dialog with whoever. Alternatively, perhaps I could envision a football game in which the player controls the coach, picking plays and such in games but not controlling the players, and you have some sort of coaching "stats" that go up by winning games (and to clarify, "stats" in the sense I am talking about, means attribute stats that actually affect the player's ability/performance in 'battle', not "stats" as in statistical records of past performances), and the player also controls the coach in between games. In that scenario, one could conceivably create a football game that qualifies as an RPG under my definition.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It wouldn't cease to be a football game... it would just also be an RPG. A "football RPG" if you will. To me, World Court Tennis totally qualifies as an RPG (albeit an unconventional one).


Wizardry would not be a RPG by your definition. Because there is no direct interaction with NPCs. (Wizardry also has problems with my storyline criteria, so that needs work too.)

I don't think Wizardry "needs" to be included as an RPG. I think it's okay to say, maybe Wizardry isn't really an RPG. If you really have to bend over backwards with all sorts of qualifiers to include something, then maybe it's better to exclude it.

Although I have to say I'm not dead set on my definition of RPG either. It's just an idea. I think it's a pretty good starting point. I'm open to modifying it... but I'm also open to simply leaving Wizardry and similar games out of the definition.

One thing to think about... Symphony of the Night is very, very similar to a dungeon crawler in many aspects. The only two big differences are that SOTN is side-view and real-time. I think disqualifying side-view and/or real-time games from the RPG definition is very problematic. To include Wizardry in my definition, you have to remove the player-initiated dialog part. But doing so (absent additional qualifications) would also make SOTN, Guardian Heroes, and a whole host of games RPGs that are, in my view, games with RPG elements. I think you have to either include SOTN or exclude Wizardry (at least I don't see a reasonable alternative to these two options). I would prefer the latter.

And actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that dungeon crawlers aren't really RPGs to me. They share similarities, but I wouldn't put them under the RPG umbrella.

[Gabriel]

Hmm. I would say that wouldn't qualify as an RPG under my definition. Who is the player character? Generally, in a football game, you have control over the entire team during the game. So what "other players" would you talk to? The opposing team? That wouldn't really work because it would have to be at very scripted opportunities, making it not player-initiated.


There are certainly examples of games which are non-controversially RPGs where the point of view character speaks to other members of his own party. Persona is like this.

In the hypothetical football game, the team itself would be analogous to the heroic group. There are certainly examples of RPGs where no single character maintains the point of view distinction throughout the game. A good example of this is Chrono Trigger, where the main point of view character dies. So, it isn't really accurate to say a RPG requires the control of a single character in game.



I don't think Wizardry "needs" to be included as an RPG. I think it's okay to say, maybe Wizardry isn't really an RPG. If you really have to bend over backwards with all sorts of qualifiers to include something, then maybe it's better to exclude it.


Occam's razor does have it's uses, and they certainly might be appropriate here. But I don't think redefining CRPGs to exclude one of the founding games of the genre would be a good redefinition.

As a programmer, sometimes you end up with conditional statements which aren't very elegant. I call such things "One Eyed Jacks Are Wild on Wednesdays." You always want to go for the easiest way of conditioning everything, but there are times when you just can't due to the checklist you need to account for.



Although I have to say I'm not dead set on my definition of RPG either. It's just an idea. I think it's a pretty good starting point. I'm open to modifying it... but I'm also open to simply leaving Wizardry and similar games out of the definition.


The only thing I feel I'm extremely rigid in is the element of my definition of RPG which says that any game which is predominately action is not an RPG. This leads to me trying to find interesting categories for the Tales series. :p

Action or realtime alone doesn't disqualify a game as a RPG. But if the action outweighs the statistical elements, if the twitch outweighs the decision making, then it is not an RPG.



I think you have to either include SOTN or exclude Wizardry (at least I don't see a reasonable alternative to these two options). I would prefer the latter.


Well, I personally think the statistics > twitch rule neatly takes care of SotN and the other games which are action games with some RPG trappings.

I just thought of something else which I'll throw out there. In many reviews for older RPGs like Ultima II, the reviewers commented the defining factor as to whether a player could beat the game was mere time investment. Since statistics defined the gameplay, and experience gained for periods of play upgraded statistics, it was only a matter of time before your characters developed enough power to be able to tackle the endgame.

This isn't exactly true. Puzzles can considerably hold a player up. But the point was that the elements which presented roadblocks were external instead of internal to the game. Not being able to finish the game because of a brainteaser is different from not being able to complete a game because you keep on mistiming the jump button during the part with the moving platforms.

So, maybe that's the key. If beating the game is ultimately dependent on grinding levels with the only other obstacles to defeating the game being external to the game, then it's a RPG. It's food for thought anyway.

[Stark]

What is the point of this thread? It seems like some people are treating the OP's blog way too seriously. "San Andreas is an RPG" ok I say it isn't now what? Nothing happens.
I'm sorry but I can't see what everyone is trying to prove here.

[Berserker]

What is the point of this thread? It seems like some people are treating the OP's blog way too seriously. "San Andreas is an RPG" ok I say it isn't now what? Nothing happens.
I'm sorry but I can't see what everyone is trying to prove here.

Yeah, I'm not sure either. It's an odd trend that seems to be growing around here lately, and even starting to take on an air of pretentiousness ("illiterates need not apply"..?). If you're going to start holding it against people for not wanting to read your life story posted on a message board then well, good luck with that.

I used to be the biggest offender of this however, well maybe second to Anthony1. Shit, there was goatdan too... I'll take third. Of course, my near page-length essays were usually relegated to Off-Topic. I've since decided that doing that is a bad idea on a message board, and now try to refrain from it. Brevity encourages discussion. Even this feels like too much, so I'll just cut it short here and end with a quote from a movie I saw a few days ago.

"Wake me up when we get to the birth of Christ."

[Daria]

It's an odd trend that seems to be growing around here lately, and even starting to take on an air of pretentiousness ("illiterates need not apply"..?).[/i]

I'm letting this thread run it's course. Hence this is only my second post. Just curious to see what everyone has to say. But that quotes not pretentiousness, it's sarcasm. Theres a trend at DP (actually it may just be one or two vocal members) ever since Anthony1 would go off on his increbibly boring rants to bitch at anyone with a wordy post for well, writing too much. So basically I'm implying that if you're going to come into the thread just to bitch that it's long, then you can go fuck yourself. I didn't mean to sound as if DP regulars couldn't read. So.. yeah. Now that that's cleared up. :P

[Daria]

So, maybe that's the key. If beating the game is ultimately dependent on grinding levels with the only other obstacles to defeating the game being external to the game, then it's a RPG. It's food for thought anyway.


Except in the case where the monster level to keep up with the player? Oblivion, Lunar, Lost Odessey.

[Berserker]

I don't think you have to worry about anyone mistaking you for Anthony1 just for making a lengthy post -- he was an odd character who was doing his thing for years and years before he earned the ability to incite the automatic ire from folks that he did.

My own opinion is that your article was good -- so good in fact, that it's poorly served by being relegated to a post on a message board, so hopefully you have a blog or site that you cross-posted it to also. That's one plus side of lengthy posts though, at least for the person making them. For me, I'd say doing so regularly improved my writing skills a great deal, and when I had the opportunity to write an actual article in a more proper context, I felt readily equipped for it.

On the minus side, I was rather poorly equipped for carrying on a succinct discussion that got all the points I wanted to get across, since I was so used to covering everything from Genesis to the Moon Landing.

I'm not here to piss on anyone's Cheerios, though. It's just kind of odd because I look at relative new guys like James8BitStar and I see a lot of similarities to how I was a few years ago. We butted heads awhile back in Off-Topic but there's potential for awesomeness there, I see it. So this is where I step back and let you guys do your thing.

[James8BitStar]

I don't think Wizardry "needs" to be included as an RPG. I think it's okay to say, maybe Wizardry isn't really an RPG. If you really have to bend over backwards with all sorts of qualifiers to include something, then maybe it's better to exclude it.

The problem there is that, as Gabriel pointed out, Wizardry was one of the founding games and early definers of the genre. There is far more bending-over-backwards involved in excluding it than in including it. And what's more is if Wizardry is excluded then we have to disclude a lot of other founding games of the genre--Akalabeth, Might & Magic, Bard's Tale, Eye of the Beholder, the list goes on and on and on...

Dungeon Crawlers are definitely RPGs. The early D&D games and modules were little more than long dungeon crawls, so games like Wizardry are building off a strong precedent.


I just thought of something else which I'll throw out there. In many reviews for older RPGs like Ultima II, the reviewers commented the defining factor as to whether a player could beat the game was mere time investment. Since statistics defined the gameplay, and experience gained for periods of play upgraded statistics, it was only a matter of time before your characters developed enough power to be able to tackle the endgame.

This isn't exactly true. Puzzles can considerably hold a player up. But the point was that the elements which presented roadblocks were external instead of internal to the game. Not being able to finish the game because of a brainteaser is different from not being able to complete a game because you keep on mistiming the jump button during the part with the moving platforms.

So, maybe that's the key. If beating the game is ultimately dependent on grinding levels with the only other obstacles to defeating the game being external to the game, then it's a RPG. It's food for thought anyway.

Time Investment = RPG? No. IMO that's on about the same page as "it has to be top-view." Especially considering your example of Ultima II, a game that can be beaten in less than thirty minutes (most early RPGs, in fact, were rather short, and got much shorter if you went into them knowing what you had to do to win).

By the way, grinding and levelling up only increased your Hit Points. You had to do something else to raise your stats.

[rpepper9]

By definition isn't RPG a "Roll Playing Game"? Therefor any game where you are not yourself (i.e. real life) are you not playing a roll? Even if you are playing R-Type, are you not "Playing" the "Roll" of spaceship pilot in a "Game" to save your little sector of the universe?

Food for thought!

[blissfulnoise]

First, it's "role", not "roll".

And, yes, by a strict definition of the term, all video games could be classified as RPGs.

Likewise, an action game is any sort of game where you perform an action. Should Puzzle Quest be an action game?

Thankfully, we don't have to get too wrapped up in literal definitions so we can attribute all sorts of properties to games to help us classify them by genre.

So, no, R-Type would not be a role-playing game.

I also think that saying that:

"If game A meets criteria X, Y, and Z then it's a role-playing game."

Is self defeating.

Pure genre games have been almost entirely abolished in modern gaming. Shooters have you leveling up, platformers have you buying items, role-playing games have you executing quick time events, and puzzle games have you on lengthy quests. As a result, the need to hybridize games is all the more apparent.

So it's not so much as attributing "these" qualities to a role-playing game, it's more holistic where you see that if X and Z are there, and utilized to a significant degree, then it qualifies.

As to the naysayers on this thread, re-establishing the definitions of genre is an important undertaking. The success of a game can sometimes hinge on what it's trying to accomplish. Sure, it's easy to just say if the game is "fun" or not, but as video games get more and more sophisticated, crossing over into the mainstream, it behooves us to critically look at games the same way we do music and movies. Classification helps this goal.

But if you want to just boil it down to the essentials, more power to you, it's not necessarily the wrong choice. It's just you're not ready for games to play a more important part of pop culture and critique them in such a light.

[koster]

By definition isn't RPG a "Roll Playing Game"?
Katamari Damacy == Roll playing game :)

[j_factor]

There are certainly examples of games which are non-controversially RPGs where the point of view character speaks to other members of his own party. Persona is like this.

In the hypothetical football game, the team itself would be analogous to the heroic group. There are certainly examples of RPGs where no single character maintains the point of view distinction throughout the game. A good example of this is Chrono Trigger, where the main point of view character dies. So, it isn't really accurate to say a RPG requires the control of a single character in game.

No no, that's not what I meant. The party talking amongst themselves, or a plot POV change, isn't what is happening in this hypothetical game (which doesn't even exist, so I don't get why we're talking at so much length about it). In the football example, it's really two different games in one -- you play a football game, and then you play some sort of adventure segment, and then you play another football game. It's like Gargoyle's Quest (which I would also not consider an RPG), where it's RPG-esque sometimes but then it switches to a completely different game.


Occam's razor does have it's uses, and they certainly might be appropriate here. But I don't think redefining CRPGs to exclude one of the founding games of the genre would be a good redefinition.

As a programmer, sometimes you end up with conditional statements which aren't very elegant. I call such things "One Eyed Jacks Are Wild on Wednesdays." You always want to go for the easiest way of conditioning everything, but there are times when you just can't due to the checklist you need to account for.

Again, I don't see the necessity to account for Wizardry as an RPG. I think it's an example of a game that was influential to the RPG genre early on, but isn't necessarily an RPG itself. I mean, The Ancient Art of War was a very important game in the creation of the RTS genre, but it is very commonly considered by fans of the genre to not quite qualify as a full-fledged RTS game.


The only thing I feel I'm extremely rigid in is the element of my definition of RPG which says that any game which is predominately action is not an RPG. This leads to me trying to find interesting categories for the Tales series. :p

Action or realtime alone doesn't disqualify a game as a RPG. But if the action outweighs the statistical elements, if the twitch outweighs the decision making, then it is not an RPG.

I think qualifying with "when X outweighs Y" is very hazy territory. I dunno, that just doesn't sit right with me.


Well, I personally think the statistics > twitch rule neatly takes care of SotN and the other games which are action games with some RPG trappings.

I just thought of something else which I'll throw out there. In many reviews for older RPGs like Ultima II, the reviewers commented the defining factor as to whether a player could beat the game was mere time investment. Since statistics defined the gameplay, and experience gained for periods of play upgraded statistics, it was only a matter of time before your characters developed enough power to be able to tackle the endgame.

This isn't exactly true. Puzzles can considerably hold a player up. But the point was that the elements which presented roadblocks were external instead of internal to the game. Not being able to finish the game because of a brainteaser is different from not being able to complete a game because you keep on mistiming the jump button during the part with the moving platforms.

So, maybe that's the key. If beating the game is ultimately dependent on grinding levels with the only other obstacles to defeating the game being external to the game, then it's a RPG. It's food for thought anyway.

But SOTN has that same aspect. I don't recall any difficulties in SOTN that you can't overcome with grinding. Can't beat that boss? Just do a little level grinding and come back. Proficiency with the action/platforming aspect greatly reduces the amount of level grinding you will have to do, but the game doesn't ever require the player to have a certain skill level at action games.

Also, the time investment thing would actually exclude Wizardry, as level grinding doesn't help you find the staircase. You can grind all day, but if you're lost, you're permanently lost.


The problem there is that, as Gabriel pointed out, Wizardry was one of the founding games and early definers of the genre. There is far more bending-over-backwards involved in excluding it than in including it. And what's more is if Wizardry is excluded then we have to disclude a lot of other founding games of the genre--Akalabeth, Might & Magic, Bard's Tale, Eye of the Beholder, the list goes on and on and on...

Dungeon Crawlers are definitely RPGs. The early D&D games and modules were little more than long dungeon crawls, so games like Wizardry are building off a strong precedent.

So you think all dungeon crawlers are RPGs? Including Nethack? Including Adventure?

I think when we're getting into some of these really old games, they might just be proto-RPGs. Not full-fledged RPGs. Just like how Patti Smith's "Horses" album is one of the founding albums of punk rock, but isn't quite punk rock per se. A genre is beyond its origins.

[James8BitStar]

So you think all dungeon crawlers are RPGs? Including Nethack? Including Adventure?

Nethack is definitely an RPG.

I don't know if you mean Adventure as in the text game that inspired Zork, or Adventure as in the Atari 2600 game, but no to both. They're missing a very important requirement... that absolutely nothing in either game depends on your statistics.

SOTN is definitely not an RPG, and again statistics is the kicker. Even though you can grind, simply having good reflexes is what most of the game will depend on. Some bosses are simply unbeatable without good reflexes (or the Classheimer sword) no matter how much you crunch. The role of your reflexes simply outweighs the role of Alucard's statistics, pure and simple. The fact that the game can be beaten with Richter--who has no statistics and does not level--only further confirms this.

By the way, as much as I disagree with the "time investment" as a requisite, it does not exclude Wizardry: You eventually get a spell that allows you to simply teleport between floors, no need to find the stairs.

[FrakAttack]

Maybe it ain't right, but I'll always think of Zelda as an RPG, cuz I remember the first time I looked at that gold box in the store and saw a little guy with a sword fighting monsters in a dungeon and thought, "Holy shit! That looks like an RPG!"

[Gabriel]

No no, that's not what I meant. The party talking amongst themselves, or a plot POV change, isn't what is happening in this hypothetical game (which doesn't even exist, so I don't get why we're talking at so much length about it). In the football example, it's really two different games in one -- you play a football game, and then you play some sort of adventure segment, and then you play another football game. It's like Gargoyle's Quest (which I would also not consider an RPG), where it's RPG-esque sometimes but then it switches to a completely different game.

Well, we can certainly drop the hypothetical football game. I was only using it as a way of illustrating my point of how your two criteria needed a few more bits added. I didn't find anything wrong with your two requirements. I was just saying there needed to be a few more conditions.



Again, I don't see the necessity to account for Wizardry as an RPG. I think it's an example of a game that was influential to the RPG genre early on, but isn't necessarily an RPG itself. I mean, The Ancient Art of War was a very important game in the creation of the RTS genre, but it is very commonly considered by fans of the genre to not quite qualify as a full-fledged RTS game.


I don't have any objection with asking the question if Wizardry should be a RPG. I just don't find the argument to remove it from the genre a compelling one. It's like if we suddenly reclassified platformers to exclude Super Mario Bros; we'd need a pretty good reason.

I'm having to bend over backwards because of my story requirement. Is there any reason you feel Wizardry should be excluded other than not meeting your non-player character requirement?

Tangetically, you mention Ancient Art of War as not being a RTS. I honestly had never thought of that game's categorization. I used to play Ancient Art of War at Sea quite a bit on a friend's Tandy. It occurs to me that AAoWaS shares many qualities with Starfleet Command and Star Trek: Tactical Assault. Would SFC also fail to qualify as a RTS? I suppose you could categorize the games as a different breed of simulator. I guess the old Apple game Broadsides would be in the same boat (pun intended).

We have enough points to keep us busy for a while, but that little bit caught my eye. :)




I think qualifying with "when X outweighs Y" is very hazy territory. I dunno, that just doesn't sit right with me.


I definitely don't disagree. I'd prefer to be able to list much harder rules.

We (or maybe just me) seem to be focusing a lot on the idea of statistics versus action oriented play. But what about storyline? I'm sure we can all agree that storyline is a key element of an RPG, but nowadays all games have storylines. How is the storyline of Fire Emblem different from that of Gradius V. Both are linear. Both have little bearing on their game. I think everyone will agree that a RPG MUST have a story, but how does that little element on the checklist work?



But SOTN has that same aspect. I don't recall any difficulties in SOTN that you can't overcome with grinding. Can't beat that boss? Just do a little level grinding and come back. Proficiency with the action/platforming aspect greatly reduces the amount of level grinding you will have to do, but the game doesn't ever require the player to have a certain skill level at action games.


I'm going to borrow James8BitStar's answer, because he seems to get what I'm awkwardly trying to convey.



SOTN is definitely not an RPG, and again statistics is the kicker. Even though you can grind, simply having good reflexes is what most of the game will depend on. Some bosses are simply unbeatable without good reflexes (or the Classheimer sword) no matter how much you crunch. The role of your reflexes simply outweighs the role of Alucard's statistics, pure and simple. The fact that the game can be beaten with Richter--who has no statistics and does not level--only further confirms this.


Back to the Wizardry secret elevator, it depends on nothing other than the player's ability to find it and mapping prowess. That's what I mean by external to the game.

In the same way, Ultima II relies entirely on grinding for gold. Even the two main puzzle elements: the bartender who raises your stats, and the man under the tree, both rely on your gold grinding efforts.

I'm not saying it's the only point on the checklist. I'm just saying that it does seem to be a quality of a great many games.



So you think all dungeon crawlers are RPGs? Including Nethack? Including Adventure?

I think when we're getting into some of these really old games, they might just be proto-RPGs. Not full-fledged RPGs. Just like how Patti Smith's "Horses" album is one of the founding albums of punk rock, but isn't quite punk rock per se. A genre is beyond its origins.

I know there are arcadeish dungeon crawlers, so not all dungeon crawlers are RPGs. I don't know anything about Nethack. As for Adventure, regardless of whether you're talking about Adventure in the Collossal Cave or the 2600 game, neither are RPGs. The 2600 game is pure action with no leveling up or other statistical elements. There are no shops, non-player characters, or any of the other associated things to relate to RPGs. Adventure in the Collossal Cave also lacks all of the same things despite it being turn based.

Speaking of games like the Adventures, Zorks, and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Cloudy Mountain, I'd use your "proto-RPG" label to apply to them. They clearly aren't RPGs, but they're certainly leaning that way.

[Press_Start]

Felt like adding my 2 cents here.

Using modern games to define a genre is a daunting task. As most modern games incorporate elements from multiple genres, making it hard to sort out what's what.

We need to step back into the past and look at distinguishing RPG titles, such as, Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest. The first unique thing about these games is that the player can move about as he/she pleases. This freedom allows the player to go around and explore the game's world and accomplishing this at your own pace, with a timer forcing you to go and beat the stage at a blistering speed. On top of that, you have a life guage meaning you won't die within the first touch of a goomba.

However, these traits can easily found in many non-RPG games, such as, Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest. How do you separate the RPGs from the adventure games? By looking at how the player's character grows.

Growth is an essential element in many games as it prevents them from becoming repetitive and dull. When you beat an RPG game, one has to assume your character is obviously much stronger than when you started the game. However, it is found outside of adventure and RPG games in the form of "power-ups".

Do equipment and items bought in stores and found in dungeons help distinguish the RPG?
No, as many adventure games like Simon's Quest, acquiring enough money does allow one character to buy weapons and armor.

What's left? Battles!
This is where RPGs are unique to other game genres. An RPG's main source of growth come from defeating various enemies and bosses within the game allowing the characters to gain experience and leveling up.

A direct correlation between the enemies defeated and a characters growth is the one distinguishing factor.

There's my 2 cents, be happy to hear from others 2 cents, but don't throw them in my eyes. :puppydogeyes:

[Buyatari]

99% of RPG = You are a little boy with no parents in some far away village. The village gets attacked and everyone dies but you now you are an orphan without a home. You do what anyone would do in this situation. You pick up a sword and/or a spellbook and start killing anyone who doesn't reply back when you try to talk to them.

You also have a magical bag that holds 99 potions 99 herbs and 99999999999999 gold pieces without slowing you down. Most of which you have stolen from those you have killed and "found" in chests in the houses of those you do talk to. If you happen to die no big deal some money hungry priest will help you for a fee. You like to sleep at the inn alot and it magiclly heals all your wounds. After killing all there is to be killed it turns out you were the prince that somehow was lost. With the king dead this makes you the king. The king who kicks ass.

[NoahsMyBro]

A) Buyatari, I thoroughly enjoyed your concise definition.

B) Daria - Excellent article! Just about this entire thread, especially your original post, read like a thorough, intelligent academic discussion. I like it.

C) Not to nitpick, but in the original post you mention that Dragon Warrior was the first console RPG. I'd have thought there were many RPG-type games much earlier than Dragon Warrior. One in particular is Temple of Apshai. I don't remember the details of the game, so maybe it should be excluded, but I'd have thought it, or something like it. would have qualified.

[James8BitStar]

But what about storyline? I'm sure we can all agree that storyline is a key element of an RPG,

No we can't. Most of those "founding fathers" didn't really have storylines that served more purpose than framing the action. Some still don't. And as you said, other genres have storylines. Ninja Gaiden had a storyline. King's Quest had a storyline. Neither are RPGs.

......

And if I may go off on a tangent...

I'm seriously thinking that all our old genre titles need to be replaced. They're outmoded, outdated, and generally too vague. "RPG" Especially--as we've all noticed, the term is meaningless because you don't really "role play" (or, if you look at it from the opposite perspective, ALL games allow you to role-play).

In the place of old, outdated genre classifications, I propose the following:

A&E (Action and Exploration) = Legend of Zelda, Metroid, SOTN

Action = Super Mario Bros. Mega Man II, Ninja Gaiden

Collect n' Explore = King's Quest, Zork, Sam n' Max

Duel game = Street Fighter II, Tekken 4, Rise of the Robots

Pure Exploration = Myst and its clones (they lack an item collection/usage aspect and thus are different from Collect n' Explore)

Real Game = any game that simulates a real-world game. For example, sports, or Yu-Gi-Oh.

S&E (Statistics and Exploration) = Dragon Warrior, Wizardry, Lufia II

Whack 'em Sack 'em = Double Dragon, Final Fight, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IV

[blissfulnoise]

A) Buyatari, I thoroughly enjoyed your concise definition.

B) Daria - Excellent article! Just about this entire thread, especially your original post, read like a thorough, intelligent academic discussion. I like it.

C) Not to nitpick, but in the original post you mention that Dragon Warrior was the first console RPG. I'd have thought there were many RPG-type games much earlier than Dragon Warrior. One in particular is Temple of Apshai. I don't remember the details of the game, so maybe it should be excluded, but I'd have thought it, or something like it. would have qualified.

The Apshai trilogy laid some of the groundwork for the early rogue-like games and, thus, are definately part of the RPG canon. However, Apshai only came out on computer platforms thus Daria's original declaraction still stands valid.

Though one could argue that AD&D: Treasures of Tarmin, released on the Intellivision was the first console RPG (Cloudy Mountain is much more action driven); though it is somewhat debatable.

[NoahsMyBro]

I would have sworn it was also on the Colecovision. A quick driveby by Google reveals 'Gateway to Apshai' on the CV. I played Temple of... on my brother's C64, and just assumed the game on the Colecovision was the same. I didn't realize it was a sequel, with a different name.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_to_Apshai)

Still, Gateway may fit the definition, and was on the CV, before Dragon Warrior.

And now I'm beginning to really sound like a pedantic, nitpicking busybody. Sorry.

[Gabriel]

No we can't. Most of those "founding fathers" didn't really have storylines that served more purpose than framing the action. Some still don't. And as you said, other genres have storylines. Ninja Gaiden had a storyline. King's Quest had a storyline. Neither are RPGs.


OK. How about this.

If we ripped out the entire storyline of Fire Emblem, and replaced all the character graphics with abstract shapes, would it still be a RPG, or would it become a wargame?

Did Tunnels of Doom have a story? I don't recall if there's any specific reason why you're generating the random dungeons.

Do RPGs not need an in-game story? Unless Tunnels of Doom lacks one, I can't think of any which lack one entirely, perhaps Aklabeth (sp) or maybe Telengard.

I think you're right, though. The storyline requirement is meaningless. In the olden days there wasn't enough memory for a story, and in modern times there's enough memory for anything to have an in-game story.

[Cryomancer]

Where would Sigma Star Saga place into this? It has a storyline, characters, items, exploration, but all it's "random battles" and leveling up are done via horizontal shooting segments. Obviously the game was designed to have elements of two genres, does that make defining both of those genres more difficult, or should we just accept that there are games that intentionally cross between genres?

this is all very interesting.

[blissfulnoise]

Where would Sigma Star Saga place into this? It has a storyline, characters, items, exploration, but all it's "random battles" and leveling up are done via horizontal shooting segments. Obviously the game was designed to have elements of two genres, does that make defining both of those genres more difficult, or should we just accept that there are games that intentionally cross between genres?

this is all very interesting.

Much like Guardian Legend, SSS defies any sort of hard and fast genre definition. Guardian Legend goes into a sort of Action/Adventure/Shooter category; not RPG though. Sigma Star Saga is more Shooter/RPG since it has many more traditional RPG elements.

Just like film, cross genres become genres onto themselves: Romantic Comedy, Crime Drama, etc. until the subgenres become genres in their own right.

[Chris]

At first I'd like to say that imo there's no black & white or boolean value to apply to the borderline cases. Sometimes there just is no clear line to be drawn.
Furthermore when other games share certain RPG characteristics, then this doesn't necessarily render these characteristics irrelevant.
RPGs are (as many other videogames) simulations of fictional worlds and most of their characteristics evolved out of technical constraints. As these are overcome and simulations get more realistic, genre inevitably merge (see GTA San Andreas).


Anyway, let's take a look at RPGs and try to formulate similarities and differentiations.
I think we can make out three subdivisions in chronological order:

1) P&P-RPG (the Pen & Paper RPGs out of which the others evolved)
2) C-RPG (computer RPGs)
3) J-RPG (Japanese RPGs or console RPGs)

As P&P RPGs are more improvisational affairs, where the rules are defined/executed by a gamemaster (not a computer), they give players the greatest amount of freedom and control in shaping the direction and outcome of the game through their choices (a kind of interactive storytelling). They're also more collaborative and social than competitive, cause they can incorporate harder to formalise concepts like social interaction more easily.
C-RPGs tried to simulate this experience, but as the rules are now in the hands of the computer, great abstractions had to be made due to technical constraints. Though with time they also offered reasonably open-ended and nonlinear plot structures and dynamic worlds, while J-RPGs are generally more strictly directed and linear experiences.
Of course when we speak about an RPG, we want to describe C-RPGs and J-RPGs. So.. what do they have in common? Let's take a look at both the player's experience of playing an RPG and the game (seen as a formal system) itself:


What does the player do and feel in an RPG?
Players assume the role of a fictional avatar or party in a (usually well-developed) simulated fictional gameworld (setting).
The gaming experience is primarily centered around immersion (being someone else) or empathy (feeling with someone else).

How's that done in an RPG?
The game is either concerned with creating the player's or following the designer's story with an emphasis on character/party development and customization.
As an abstraction for actual skill development, the avatar's/party's quantized characteristics (stats) are raised over the course of the game through rewards for exploring the gameworld & overcomming challenges.


For example Wizardry (and C-RPGs in general) are more concerned with letting the players experience and tell their own story through more extensive character customization. In this case, the nonexistence of a story even strengthens this point, as leaving out details creates room to be filled by the player's own imagination. This raises a feeling of immersion, whereas it's more difficult to imagine oneself to be a detailed, predefined avatar like seen in many J-RPGs, where you instead feel with him/her (empathy).
I hope this kinda helps to resolve the often named problem of early RPGs not having predefined stories at all.

I could write and try to explain a few more things, but I guess it's enough for now @_@
PS: @James8BitStar: I like your ideas of genre classifications. I guess I'll write a few words about them when I find the time.

[j_factor]

I don't have any objection with asking the question if Wizardry should be a RPG. I just don't find the argument to remove it from the genre a compelling one. It's like if we suddenly reclassified platformers to exclude Super Mario Bros; we'd need a pretty good reason.

I'm having to bend over backwards because of my story requirement. Is there any reason you feel Wizardry should be excluded other than not meeting your non-player character requirement?

Hmm. I'm not sure how best to explain it, but I've never really thought of dungeon crawlers as RPGs. I usually think of RPGs as games that have dungeon crawling in them -- if dungeon crawling is the entire game, it's not an RPG. I'm not sure if I could say as a hard and fast rule that all RPGs must be divided into dungeons and towns, but that is certainly the epitome.


Tangetically, you mention Ancient Art of War as not being a RTS. I honestly had never thought of that game's categorization. I used to play Ancient Art of War at Sea quite a bit on a friend's Tandy. It occurs to me that AAoWaS shares many qualities with Starfleet Command and Star Trek: Tactical Assault. Would SFC also fail to qualify as a RTS? I suppose you could categorize the games as a different breed of simulator. I guess the old Apple game Broadsides would be in the same boat (pun intended).

We have enough points to keep us busy for a while, but that little bit caught my eye. :)

Unfortunately, this is where I break down, as I've not played Starfleet Command or Star Trek: Tactical Assault. I suppose I need to educate myself on more hoary old PC games. :p


I definitely don't disagree. I'd prefer to be able to list much harder rules.

We (or maybe just me) seem to be focusing a lot on the idea of statistics versus action oriented play. But what about storyline? I'm sure we can all agree that storyline is a key element of an RPG, but nowadays all games have storylines. How is the storyline of Fire Emblem different from that of Gradius V. Both are linear. Both have little bearing on their game. I think everyone will agree that a RPG MUST have a story, but how does that little element on the checklist work?

Storyline is a good one. We could perhaps say that to be an RPG, it must have a plot that has a beginning, middle, and end. We'll put that as a tentative requirement for now. I'm sure someone will list a bunch of ridiculously old DOS games that they insist are RPGs, that only had a story inasmuch as they had a paragraph of backstory in the manual and a "Congratulations!" screen at the end. ;) In all seriousness, maybe such games really should not be considered RPGs.


I know there are arcadeish dungeon crawlers, so not all dungeon crawlers are RPGs. I don't know anything about Nethack. As for Adventure, regardless of whether you're talking about Adventure in the Collossal Cave or the 2600 game, neither are RPGs. The 2600 game is pure action with no leveling up or other statistical elements. There are no shops, non-player characters, or any of the other associated things to relate to RPGs. Adventure in the Collossal Cave also lacks all of the same things despite it being turn based.

Speaking of games like the Adventures, Zorks, and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Cloudy Mountain, I'd use your "proto-RPG" label to apply to them. They clearly aren't RPGs, but they're certainly leaning that way.

All fair enough.

This has been a very interesting discussion, but now I feel like I'm running out of points to make. I hereby forfeit the title of "Anthony1 Jr." :p

One possibility I'll throw out there. Maybe we shouldn't think of "RPG" as a genre anymore. Maybe we should think of action-RPG, strategy-RPG, "Japanese" RPG, etc. all as separate genres, with some common elements. Or maybe we should only be talking about "RPG elements" and completely disavow there being such a thing as an RPG. The only problem with that is coming up with a name for the type of game that Final Fantasy, Phantasy Star, et al are. Just food for thought!

[James8BitStar]

Though I've officially decided I don't care about the definition of the "RPG" anymore since it is a hopelessly outdated term, I do have some final words on that.

First of all, storyline is a BAD criteria, not just for RPGs but for pretty much any video game. These are games, and the only criteria that should even count are ones that directly involve the mechanics of the games. Storyline does not.

Secondly, I'm of the mind that any criteria which only works if you disregard half the accepted canon of the RPG, is bad criteria. Most of you seem to be saying "I came up with a new criteria, how many games fit it?" When what you should be doing is saying "all these games are considered RPGs, what do they have in common?" and use that as your basis (not to brag, but that's how I arrived at my "Statistics and Exploration" theory).

That being said...


Or maybe we should only be talking about "RPG elements" and completely disavow there being such a thing as an RPG.

I like that idea.


The only problem with that is coming up with a name for the type of game that Final Fantasy, Phantasy Star, et al are.

*Pokes, points at previous post*

[ALAKA]

Would you guys consider Tecmo Cup for the NES an rpg?

[Chris]

I certainly would. Thing is, you can apply RPG mechanics & characteristics to nearly any setting/fictional world.
E.g. you could very well built an RPG around drag-racing or mountain climbing.

It's especially easy to apply to sports, cause of the clear, predefined rulesets.
Another good example is the RPG mode in World Court Tennis for TG16.

[Cryomancer]

That's nothing new, there are paper and pencil sports RPGs too. Most notably, football.

[Gabriel]

That's nothing new, there are paper and pencil sports RPGs too. Most notably, football.

Could you provide a name of one of these? I'm coming out of about 25 years of being a die-hard P&P RPGer, and have heard of quite a few games ranging from Spawn of Fashan to Zaon, but I've never seen any sports RPG. Are these retail games, paid PDFs, or web homebrew freebies?

[Cryomancer]

http://www.blood-bowl.net/ I've never played it, and it is technically more of a miniatures game, but there's stats and dice. It's arguably more like a tabletop war/mech/space game, but it's something close at least.

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_football_(board_games)

[HappehLemons]

I've always been confused about this.
Is there any universally agreed definition of an RPG? I understand that it is a "Role Playing Game" but if that was truly the definition every game would be a RPG.

This probably seems like a dumb question, but I see a lot of games classified into the RPG genres with no clue why.

[Arkhan]

RPG is mostly games where you build your character up with a system of stats.
and battles take place similar to a D&D setting

Character development, story, and towns are emphasized....

theres dungeon-->town--->exploration afoot....

Its often menu driven. Only in rare cases (action RPGs) is it not totally "menu driven"

Basically its games similar to an electronic implementation of D&D or other pen/paper RPGs.

Yes you're playing a role in say, Halo, but it doesn't contain the same immersive story/world elements that make it a deeper game than a normal FPS...

Some games COULD be said to be RPGs, but often have a more predominant genre... like Zelda, it is more action/adventure than action RPG.

somethin' like that.

[MASTERWEEDO]

I've always been confused about this.
Is there any universally agreed definition of an RPG? I understand that it is a "Role Playing Game" but if that was truly the definition every game would be a RPG.

This probably seems like a dumb question, but I see a lot of games classified into the RPG genres with no clue why.

I have always had the same question.

[Jorpho]

oh no

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38415
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113452

Can we get a merge or a lock in here, stat?