What is an RPG?
Okay
So
I love this debate.
What is an RPG?
I mean video game RPGs as opposed to PnP RPGs.
I've heard that an RPG is a game that uses statistics, is story focused, and has classes and such.
I've heard it's any game where you play a "role" which often times means every game is an RPG.
I've heard it's a game where you play you're own self-chosen role within the parameters of the game environment.
I've heard countless other definitions that clash and none seem to ever get anywhere so in the end the debate is pointless but I always find it to be fun and engaging.
What do you think an RPG is?
For me personally I think an RPG is any game where you create your protagonist and roleplay within the game world and the game facilitates roleplaying. Thereby I would say that most, not all, JRPGs are games with elements of RPGs but aren't RPGs. Action games like Dark Souls are RPGs because of the character creation process and choice of gameplay style and story motivations within the game world.
The Witcher is a strange case but again I'd just say it as RPG elements in choice of dialogue and such.
My reasoning for this is that when I started playing D&D I saw there is limitless potential for roleplaying within it to act as your character. I like to think there's a spectrum of roleplay.
Full Roleplay (PnP RPGs- - - - - Baldur's Gate, NWN, Dark Souls- - - - Gold Box Games, Final Fantasy I - - - - Witcher - - - Other Final Fantasies, "Tales of" series) very little roleplaying.
A second definition which is the one I use usually is, "The Intent of playing the game defines the genre."
Do you buy a game to roleplay? Probably an RPG. By a game to do cool combos and flashy moves? Probably a character-action game. That sort of thing.
Another definition as by the producer of Tales of the Abyss stated that the game was not an RPG. He said an RPG is a game where you live the life of an alter-ego within a game's setting and that Tales of the Abyss was not your alter-ego but rather people with predefined backstories.
Disagree with me? Tell me why. I want your definition on what an RPG is and why you say that's what it is.
This thread was sparked by a comment by @Buttercheese and the countless debates I've had with my IRL friends.
Edit: My spectrum wasn't showing up so changed from arrows to parentheses.
So
I love this debate.
What is an RPG?
I mean video game RPGs as opposed to PnP RPGs.
I've heard that an RPG is a game that uses statistics, is story focused, and has classes and such.
I've heard it's any game where you play a "role" which often times means every game is an RPG.
I've heard it's a game where you play you're own self-chosen role within the parameters of the game environment.
I've heard countless other definitions that clash and none seem to ever get anywhere so in the end the debate is pointless but I always find it to be fun and engaging.
What do you think an RPG is?
For me personally I think an RPG is any game where you create your protagonist and roleplay within the game world and the game facilitates roleplaying. Thereby I would say that most, not all, JRPGs are games with elements of RPGs but aren't RPGs. Action games like Dark Souls are RPGs because of the character creation process and choice of gameplay style and story motivations within the game world.
The Witcher is a strange case but again I'd just say it as RPG elements in choice of dialogue and such.
My reasoning for this is that when I started playing D&D I saw there is limitless potential for roleplaying within it to act as your character. I like to think there's a spectrum of roleplay.
Full Roleplay (PnP RPGs- - - - - Baldur's Gate, NWN, Dark Souls- - - - Gold Box Games, Final Fantasy I - - - - Witcher - - - Other Final Fantasies, "Tales of" series) very little roleplaying.
A second definition which is the one I use usually is, "The Intent of playing the game defines the genre."
Do you buy a game to roleplay? Probably an RPG. By a game to do cool combos and flashy moves? Probably a character-action game. That sort of thing.
Another definition as by the producer of Tales of the Abyss stated that the game was not an RPG. He said an RPG is a game where you live the life of an alter-ego within a game's setting and that Tales of the Abyss was not your alter-ego but rather people with predefined backstories.
Disagree with me? Tell me why. I want your definition on what an RPG is and why you say that's what it is.
This thread was sparked by a comment by @Buttercheese and the countless debates I've had with my IRL friends.
Edit: My spectrum wasn't showing up so changed from arrows to parentheses.
Post edited by Vallmyr on
12
Comments
However, I'd say that an "RPG" without combat is no RPG at all. Even if such a game would have roleplaying elements, like dialogue choices for instance. At the end of the day it would still be of a different genre: either simulation, adventure game, interactive fiction, or visual novel.
Ultimately the choice would have to change how the player perceives his avatar, because that is the essence of roleplaying. The problem with that definition is that it leaves the decision of whether or not the game is an RPG to the player, making it subjective.
My guess is that the term RPG is not really appropriate for video games, or at least for most of them. Video games are defined by their rules, but an RPG is defined by how the players choose to play it.
Statistics and classes don't make a game an RPG. They are in essence an effect but not a cause, because they are tools that help you flesh out your character. You can have as many classes as you want in a game, but if the only thing that that affects is how you kill stuff, that is not an RPG.
Playing a role is paramount, but the question is what does that mean. You are indeed playing some role in virtually any game, but if that role-playing narrows down to what buttons you press against what enemies, that is not an RPG.
The character does not have to be created by the player for a game to be an RPG for the same reason that not being able to play certain races in certain games does not prevent a game from being an RPG. Any way you look at it, you are playing the role of an imaginary person within the given constraints, and sometimes by design you have to play a certain character for the story to make sense.
My opinion on RPGs is this: as long as a game has a detailed world where you as a character can interact with people and objects, receive feedback and have a certain degree of influence on various events via different routes, it is fair to call it an RPG.
Although the edges of the definition are blurred, for me, an RPG is a game where you can create and develop your protagonist and have the freedom of choice to guide that character through the game in a unique and personally customised way.
For me the crucial denominator to earn the title of RPG is the amount of control you actually have about the character your are playing.
By control I don't mean that I get to choose what weapon my char is gonna use, I mean choice vs. conflict.
By choice I mean things that don't have a clear logical solution. Often it comes down to taste or morals. It's about what would the character do, not the player. But you, the player, decides what it is.
Conflict on the other hand, is the core of pretty much every game. It's about what will be the most effective or most pleasing. It's about what you as the player would do.
More than often these lines are blurred, but the choice aspect is absolutely crucial when it comes to RPGs. Choice has to be a core mechanic.
That is why Final Fantasy isn't an RPG.
Almost all the decisions made in the games that go beyond "kill that thing"/ "do that quest"/ "equip that gear" are made by the characters themselves. You as the player are basically just "managing" the characters. You have no influence on them as "people".
So what in my opinion is the purest RPG out there?
Spoiler alert: It's not Baldur's Gate.
Or Planescape Torment.
Nope.
It's Telltale's The walking Dead and The Wolf among Us.
These games are all about choice.
You become Lee. You become Bigby.
You actually get to control their emotions.
One could argue that the player can feel the emotions instead.
Which he does. I brawl like a litte baby whenever I play Metal Gear Solid 4.
The difference is, that the world actually reacts to the things you do.
So, uh, I guess in the end it comes down to controlling the emotional side of the character you are playing and wether or not it makes a difference.
I hope any of that makes sense.
An RPG for me is where I get to choose my character's actions and "become" the character, both via dialogue but also via ie choosing in which order to do missions/tasks/quests. It doesn't mean I have to be able to create him/her (Witcher) but excludes all games with level up based skill trees, like Call of Duty's unlocked abilities or similar.
An RPG for me is where the choices I make affects the story to some extent. If the game is strictly linear and I can't affect it it anyway, then it's not really an RPG for me. I haven't played much FF, except 1 and 2 on NES, but if what @buttercheese says about FF is true, that's the exact point I'm making.
An RPG for me is where the choices I make on leveling up affects the way I adress issues/events in the game afterwards, meaning the character progression and the problem-solving goes hand in hand. I can choose to focus on combat thus makin it easier to keep using violence to solve my problems, or choose more diplomatic options and excel in that area etc.
BG is an RPG of course, it ticks of all of the above, but so does Mass Effect. I don't mind sub-genres but IMHO, ME is an RPG which doesn't need the prefix "action". I don't think I have ever became the character I was playing before or after I played ME. When the third game ended, I was close to tears since it was MY story ending, not some generic Shephard character. Same with Witcher to some extent.
Games such as Diablo are indeed RPG-ish to some extent, but doesn't really tick of the second option for me.
But that doesn't matter either, really.
You see, it's not about the bigger picture. It's about what happens in the moment.
Baldur's Gate didn't nail the roleplaying aspect because you get to decide in the end what happens at the Throne of Bhaal. The story is ultimately mostly set in stone as well. Ultimately you will face your destiny. What matters, is that you can change the little things. The world still reacts to you accordingly.
Tell an NPC your name and he'll leave you alone. Tell him that you are a rampaging horde of tarasques and he will get annoyed at you. But ultimately, it makes no difference. What matters is that it feels like it does.
Story is at par with combat mechanics, at least.
But study finds that we are conditioned to "roleplay" - so a game like tetris or boulder dash probably has almost zero role play elements. But even Scorch (old school round-based tank battle) produced passions for our tanks, because we could name them - and best battles were ones where we named each others tanks, actually! Yet still today, "Tummy of Steel" is a tank I remember, with a wish Scorch classic will return.
I'd think anything allowing empathy, passion, identification or personification shall have also RPG "elements."
Edit. Sorry, forgot to add (*) footnote to make this reference clear. As opposed to biblical "feet of clay." (plus eliminated double have from last line since I already had edit going)
This is what I actually appreciate about "illusion of choice" options. For me it's less about what the reaction is and more about me being able to choose a line that my character would say.
Let's make a hypothetical situation.
Say there's a D&D game that uses the alignment system and you can shift alignments based on actions/dialogue.
Maybe there's a conversation that goes A _ E. _ is where you get the chance to put B, C, or D.
So maybe A B E and you say something good, +1 to good alignment.
A C E and it's neutral, nothing happens.
A D E and it's evil, you go +1 towards evil.
The beginning and end of the conversation was the same regardless but that little choice to decide how your character speaks is what matters even if there is only the illusion of choice. Even if you take away the alignment system so that there is no mechanical benefit to each answer it still lets you respond in a way that defines your character.
I perso love the combat, some might dislike. Most importantly I find the writing most profound in gaming since Planescape Torment. The dungeons are very "go green" though - i.e. recycled. But to me this is less important than story overall.
I do appreciate the game for what it is, though.
My love stands supreme, so I am actually quite curious to hear what bothers you about it. Please tell - I'd like to know! And thx.
DA:O managed pretty well to reconcile what you and I like both.
But between DA2 and DA:I, you'll prefer the latter unlike me, I take it?
It makes me mostly angry because it didn't manage to fill those large footprints it's predacessor had left.
On it's own it's pretty great. In the bigger picture ... not so much -.-
That and the utterly terrible level and armor designs .... I better shut up.
PS: I LOVE ANDERS
But I've been at it since BG2 - and I've elevated PS:T at par with DA:2 having played BW, Larian, Obsidian, Bethesda consistently, and bearing a definite torch for Reality Pump. (Yea Two Worlds III!)
Can you please explain what made those footprints large? I will try and verbalize alike, too. -)
I loved DA:O and have replayed it many times.
DA2 played did it once, was like ok this is alright.
Then I had force myself through DA:I
Like I had to push through 80 hours to beat the game and was told my friends it was super good. Between Corypheus being the most boring person ever and playing with the horrible PC controls exited the game feeling "meh."
That's not to say the dialogue choices were particularly bad or the class design was bad but it's my least favorite of the three because it felt to me like Bioware had no idea what they were trying to make. It's half action, and half Rtwp but neither worked well at all >_>.
My male Elf Necromancer did try to romance Sera though and even though he kept getting rejected he just kept trying.
I also loved Scout Harding though I was frustrated that you could only flirt with her and even though she accepted it and was like, "Hey, after all this let's go to a tavern together." she never progresses beyond that point because Bioware doesn't like having female dwarf romance options or something.
Anywayyyyy, I value customization A LOT. DA:O had a lot of this but then DA2 and DA: I was like, "OH! YOU LIKE BARDS!? PFFTT GONE. OH YOU LIKE USING WARRIORS WITH BOWS?! PFFTT GONE!"
>_>
I don't like recent Bioware as much as I use to.
/mini rant over.
Here I am more tetris than RPG - a PC game cannot be a minimal day zero console port, a PC game should have adopted interface, not forgetting mouse clicks (on the ground), auto attack, auto looting - etc.
DA:I is an RPG, but it is not really meant well for PC gamers, from my perspective.
But just because I do not like it, it makes DA:I no less an RPG, or less loved one.
Why is definition so important, anyhow?
DA2 was terrible
DA:I was good to begin with but the more I played the more bored i became til I eventually stopped about half way through
Just didn't grab me like origins did and felt like it was lacking in so many areas...environments were pretty tho i guess...