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

[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.