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

[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.

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.

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.

[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.