What Constitutes An RPG

LostCorkGuy

Decided to make this thread so as not to drive this one off topic

Basically people pretty often say they love RPG's but what constitutes a real RPG ? Is it a game that includes Crafting , Potion making and the search for ingredients and hunting , leveling up and skill sets ect

Or is it a story driven game where you follow a liner path but you get to make choices with regard as to how the game plays out ( Deus Ex , Mass Effect , Alpha Protocol )

A game where you have an Open World where you can interact with NPC's but there is no choices to be made with regards to the story but limited variety in side quests ( Far Cry 3 )

Open Game World with a massive variety of side missions in which you create your own character , customise every bit and can put 100's of hours in with out touching the main missions (Elder Scrolls Series , Fall Out 3 )

Open World Game with consequences of missions and full customisation of character and world ( Fall Out New Vegas )

No Overreaching goals bar that of survival and character upgrading ( Mount and Blade , Dark Souls )

A RPG is a shoulder-fired, anti-tank weapon system that fires rockets equipped with an explosive warhead .




***

Personally I believe for a game to be considered a true RPG it must fill the following conditions

*Open World
*Customisation of Character / Stats
*Detailed Side Quests
*No Order Of Completion

And possibly
*Story driven Game
*Choices Driven Game


So to me the only true RPG I've played in the last few years was Fall Out - New Vegas


Or should we not try to force things into Genres

Zillah

An RPG is a game where you can choose your reactions and choices, and has an element of character customisation. Ideally it should have a good, well-paced story, well-developed characters, and believable game-world. Being able to tailor your look and style is fun too.

Requiring open-world is rather arbitrary to me, and counter-productive, to be honest. I think open-world has become a total fad and has largely detracted from good storytelling. The story in Oblivion/Skyrim was a bloody joke, for example. Despite its pretensions to the contrary, Mass Effect was not open world and is one of the best RPG experiences out there.

There are RPG elements in lots of games though. I'm playing Fallen Enchantress at the moment, and you can choose what your character looks like, their powers and gear, even their pose and background in their portrait picture. It is, however, closest to Civ in gameplay terms.

Agricola

At its most basic, I'd say any game where you can make choices that affect the storyline, normally through dialogue with npcs.
If the game has dialogue choices which are only window dressing, ie if the game has only one possible outcome no matter what, I wouldn't class it an RPGs.

My own preference then is for an exploration based open world where you can do what you like from the get go.

* edit * oh yeah levelling and points distribution is crucial too, not an RPGs without the ability to build a character type IMO.

CastorTroy

When I started the thread that created this one, what I had in my head were Turn Based RPGs(should that be an option in itself?). Reason being that since I've been playing since the days of Spectrum, western RPGs like Mass Effect, etc weren't as common and only time I heard RPG mentioned in NES and SNES days was when talking about Turn Based RPGs.

After those, I would probably describe other games as Action games with RPG elements.

Though come to think of it, could play Hero Quest on the Spectrum. :-)

Sarky

No Overreaching goals bar that of survival and character upgrading

Choices and consequences are essential. Can't have an RPG without them. Everything else is pretty much window dressing.

You're supposed to be stepping into the shoes of an alter ego, and making choices the way they would. And most importantly, dealing with the consequences. The binary choices in Mass Effect or Bioshock annoy me, tbh. One choice is usually far more rewarding than the other. Why harvest Little Sisters when you get tonnes more stuff for saving them? Why wipe out a whole race when Shepherd can recruit them to fight the Reapers? That's not choice. Oblivion and Skyrim were worse in that respect: Very little you do actually changes the game world, there are no meaningful relationships between you and the wooden NPCs populating the world... They're fun for a while, and very pretty, but still kind of dead inside.

The Witcher 2 does a better job. Few choices are clearly superior (and even more rarely are they clearly morally the right choice). The game almost splits wholly in two depending on an early choice.

The Ironman mode in X-COM had me thinking what a good feature that would be to apply to RPG dialogue. Too many people save before talking to someone in case they make the "wrong" choice. I just can't understand that mindset. I think it's cowardly, removing the consequences of choosing removes the point of having choices, and it stops being an RPG. What I'd like to see is being forced to live with the things your character said, by saving the game after every dialogue choice you choose. You piss someone off, you can't just reload and choose the options to make them happy instead.

Levelling up and skill improvement is good to have as well, it stops combat from getting stale, it increases threat level, it adds a sense of achievement. But to me the point, the whole point of an role playing game, is personality development, of the characters both ally and enemy, and the relationships between them.

Anything else is just, well, misusing the name, tbh.

LostCorkGuy

No Overreaching goals bar that of survival and character upgrading

Zillah wrote: »

An RPG is a game where you can choose your reactions and choices, and has an element of character customisation. Ideally it should have a good, well-paced story, well-developed characters, and believable game-world. Being able to tailor your look and style is fun too.

Requiring open-world is rather arbitrary to me, and counter-productive, to be honest. I think open-world has become a total fad and has largely detracted from good storytelling. The story in Oblivion/Skyrim was a bloody joke, for example. Despite its pretensions to the contrary, Mass Effect was not open world and is one of the best RPG experiences out there.

There are RPG elements in lots of games though. I'm playing Fallen Enchantress at the moment, and you can choose what your character looks like, their powers and gear, even their pose and background in their portrait picture. It is, however, closest to Civ in gameplay terms.

`


I'd dispute that Mass Effect 3 really is a RPG , in my opinion it is a linear corridor based shooter , you make choices during the break from each mission but there is limited choices during the gameplay it's self and you can't even revisit the locations you've been to before which at least you can do in other story driven games such as the Witcher and Dragon Age

Genghiz Cohen

My only requirement for an RPG would be the game focuses around the ability to specialise in some skill area at the expense of some other skills.

Zillah

LostCorkGuy wrote: »

I'd dispute that Mass Effect 3 really is a RPG , in my opinion it is a linear corridor based shooter , you make choices during the break from each mission but there is limited choices during the gameplay it's self and you can't even revisit the locations you've been to before which at least you can do in other story driven games such as the Witcher and Dragon Age

This is all a little circular. So visiting previous locations is a defining element of an RPG? As I said, I maintain that making conversation choices that impact the story and characters, and getting to define and develop your avatar are really all that are essential for it to be an RPG (you play a role in the game). An open-world, for example, or a turn-based combat system, are hallmarks of two different types of RPG. It's a bit like saying that the defining qualities of ice-cream are frozen, sugary, milky dessert with chocolate flavouring...you're going one step too far defining icecream there.

Retr0gamer

Character building and choice for me, be it story choice or making decisions in how your character grows. It's why I feel zelda isn't an RPG. Your abilities are arbitrary while even a simplistic RPG like FFIV allow a small amount of character building through levelling up.

Really it's a very grey area. Sports games now are pretty much pokemon with the battle system replaced by a sports game and multiplayer Call of Duty can definitely be classified as an RPG.

Zillah

Sarky wrote: »

Too many people save before talking to someone in case they make the "wrong" choice. I just can't understand that mindset. I think it's cowardly, removing the consequences of choosing removes the point of having choices, and it stops being an RPG

I would agree in principle, but in fairness there are a lot of RPGs where the developers have incredibly arbitrary or obtuse consequences for seemingly innocuous choices, where they seem to assume the player was psychic or like they honestly wanted you to just feel shit because you, supposedly, made the "wrong" choice. I have no shame at all reloading if the developers have my choice cause a stupid result.

LostCorkGuy

No Overreaching goals bar that of survival and character upgrading

Zillah wrote: »

This is all a little circular. So visiting previous locations is a defining element of an RPG? As I said, I maintain that making conversation choices that impact the story and characters, and getting to define and develop your avatar are really all that are essential for it to be an RPG (you play a role in the game). An open-world, for example, or a turn-based combat system, are hallmarks of two different types of RPG. It's a bit like saying that the defining qualities of ice-cream are frozen, sugary, milky dessert with chocolate flavouring...you're going one step too far defining icecream there.

Good point but what I was trying to get across is that freedom of movement should be a requirement because if they release the next call of duty where you make choices during the cut scenes and you character ended up being a dick or a hero at the end of the game in the eyes of others , you still follow a linear path that always moved forward I think it's still going to be a shooter

Or in the old Hitman games , you made choices , will I get silent assassin or psycho , those impacted on the difficulty of the next levels , you could complete the missions any way you liked , yet it's not an RPG

super_furry

Any Zelda game.

LEG IT!!!!

TheGunns

Open World where you can interact with NPC - No Choices

Surely to find a true RPG you have to look at its paper and tabletop roots. Driven by story but also full character customisation, so that falls a bit in between the lines youve drawn.

Reekwind

As I said in the other thread:

RPG is not a synonym for either 'stats-based levelling' or 'sandbox games'. They may often contain these but it is certainly not necessary. To describe something like Far Cry 3, a straight up open-world shooter, as a RPG, in any way shape or form, is just wrong. You can put a hat on a dog but it won't make him a human

More serious it the notion that RPGs are "games where you can do whatever the **** you want". That's a generation raised on the Elder Scrolls speaking. Let me be clear: the ability to roam around a map has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a game is an RPG. Very few people would consider, say, Pirates! to be an RPG. That many RPGs do have these open map areas is a legacy of their tabletop roots, not a defining feature in themselves. (And in most cases this is an illusion: games like KotOR just offer different 'levels' that can be played in any order. Similarly the likes of Bloodlines really just present a linear series of hubs to be explored)

Where Mass Effect (the first one at least) disqualifies itself from being a RPG (or a good one at least) is in that most of the gameplay is bog-standard shooting with relatively little meaningful interaction with yourself or companions. It's this interaction with the world and exploration of your role in it, as opposed to basic spatial exploration, that really defines the genre. Story is often key in this: it explains who you are, what you're doing and how you interact with others. That is, it provides you with a role to inhabit. Contrast to Far Cry or Just Cause where you have this vast playground but you're never more than Musclehead #17

(I don't consider the Elder Scrolls games to be particularly good RPGs because they often fail this basic test. Yes, I have a badass avatar and, yes, I can climb the highest mountain but there's no real roleplaying going on, beyond of course what the player puts in)

---

So I'm pretty sceptical about boiling an RPG down to a list of features. If we insist that levelling up systems make an RPG then suddenly Borderlands is one; if we insist that they must have open worlds then suddenly Planescape or Baldur's Gate 2 aren't RPGs. That's not the most productive approach and leads to confusion over genuine hybrids (such as Deus Ex)

Instead I'd focus on the essence: character development and interaction with a wider world. By which I don't simply mean levelling up and moving tables. Choice is a key component in the latter but it's not just 'evil/good' or 'select a cutscene'; it's how you approach the game. So in the original Mass Effect you run through a bog-standard FPS level and then get to make a choice at the end of the level; in Skyrim you pick up a side-quest and then a marker appears that guides you across the world to the person you have to kill. That's not real choice and neither demands real deliberation/thought from the player in how they approach the game (in terms of story or the world at least)

And that's the difference between a Call of Duty with choice cinematics or a levelling system and, say, The Witcher. One let's you interact with the world and, even when constricted by the narrative, impact it in the way of your choosing, while the other is still a shooting galley. In short: it's all about the roleplaying

blaa85

Final Fantasy 7-9, Tales of Symphonia, Grandia 2. Games from two console generations ago. I have fond memories of the characters, their storylines and the worlds they lived in. Thinking about it now, I could boot any of them up now and have the time of my life.

Everyone has their own idea of what defines an rpg.

mewso

Yes well the real question is what you want in an RPG not what you believe an RPG constitutes isn't it?

I mean I would easily offend many RPG fans by saying that I want every RPG I play to be first person while I would readily accept that it doesn't fail to qualify as an RPG based on POV anyway. What I want in an RPG will be very different to what others want. I have played and enjoyed many isometric CRPGs, third person/over the shoulder RPGS and the First Person Elder Scrolls/Fallout games all for different reasons but while I could write a list of what makes the ideal game for me the essence is an immersive, deep and engaging experience be it RPG or otherwise and many different forms of RPG have fulfilled this for me despite my general preferences.

While I often look at the likes of Skyrim for example and bemoan it's flaws and how it could be so much better in so many ways the bottom line is I put over 150 hours into it and loved almost all of that time. So maybe I am more forgiving than others but again that just brings us back to the fact that we would all have different criteria for what constitutes an rpg.

johnny_ultimate

This may seem like a cop-out response, but at the end of the day does it really matter? Sure, there are some elements that tend to recur throughout most games that tend to be labelled as RPGs - stat-based combat, a hybrid of linear and non-linear progression, in-depth stories etc... - but there are so many exceptions, hybrids and variations within that that pigeon-holing becomes an exercise in frustration and potential futility (although JRPGs tend to be much easier to pigeonhole ). It's the problem with the idea of 'genre' as a whole, really: undeniable commonalities but as soon as someone makes a few changes then trying to label will ultimately boil down to mere pedantry.

super_furry

Don't think it really matters to be honest, it's a nonsense terms for a start. Pretty much all games are games in which you play a role. In the historical sense, it would have been computerised versions of pen and paper role playing games, but it's pretty much a defunct term now to my mind.

Sarky

No Overreaching goals bar that of survival and character upgrading

Historical? I'm still playing and running tabletop RPGs...

Reekwind

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

This may seem like a cop-out response, but at the end of the day does it really matter?

It's not going to cure cancer but I do think that genres, and how we define them, does matter. It's for the same reason we use genres, in every field, in the first place: they've extremely useful shorthand labels. There's great value in being able to ask 'Can anyone recommend me a turn based strategy game?'*

The trouble starts when people try to force strict limits or features on these, which is why I favour a fluid definition. But it's still worth having a rough definition in place; if only to ensure that a request for, say, RPG recommendations doesn't become limited to open world sandbox games or broad enough to include fairly traditional FPSs. To pick a random example

*As opposed to one 'in any setting where combat takes place over a number of turns and the player takes the role of a commander, or somesuch, typically with an overhead view of the battlefield or map'

super_furry

Sarky wrote: »

Historical? I'm still playing and running tabletop RPGs...

Nah, I meant more that videogame RPGs originally took that term from pen and paper tabletop games.

MadYaker

My life is an RPG.

Retr0gamer

super_furry wrote: »

Nah, I meant more that videogame RPGs originally took that term from pen and paper tabletop games.

I started playing tabletop RPGs over a year ago. You'd be surprised how much of the DNA is still there. Even with JRPGs they stick very close to table top RPGs and really western RPGs tend to be replicas of table top RPGs with logic choices in place of a dungeon master.

Sarky

No Overreaching goals bar that of survival and character upgrading

Except a computer can't reply with "Rocks fall, everyone dies" when your character is acting the dick.

Zillah

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

but at the end of the day does it really matter?

Not in the global warming/invading Iran sense of "important", but when we have a thread where someone goes "Please suggest an RPG for me" and people post games that others don't consider RPGs, it causes a mild problem. Pedantry aside, this is a communication issue. If there isn't some consensus on what counts as an RPG then there isn't much point in using the acronym at all.

Your point about genres being ambiguous is valid, but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant or useless. We see this in all mediums, from people arguing whether a movie is a thriller or a horror, or if a song is pop or rock. Just because genres don't have clear cut delineations between them doesn't mean they're not useful conceits. If I said to you "This game is an RPG set in fantasy Russia" you have a fair idea of what to expect - you might have questions like "Is it 3rd person or 1st person?" or "Turn based or real time?", but at the end of the day you will clearly not be expecting, say, a racing simulator or a modern shooter.

Yes it is messy, with Deus Ex being both an RPG and a shooter, and Skyrim having no real story but having an open world...but life is messy. I read about some paleontologists once arguing whether a new animal discovered should be called reptile-like mammals or mammal-like reptiles.

Grimebox

Where's "All of the above"? They all describe RPG's to me

Mal-Adjusted

Zillah wrote: »

I read about some paleontologists once arguing whether a new animal discovered should be called reptile-like mammals or mammal-like reptiles.

nerd
to be fair, those are two very different taxa of animals.
/nerd

it's a pretty complex experiment coming up with a definition of RPG. I mean, I would consider a hybrid like Deus Ex (all 3 really) to be RPG's but a game like Dark Forces II or Advent Rising (which share a lot of the level-up and skills and choices/consequences) not to be. nor would I really deem an open world environment necessary as it's very difficult to tell a narrative in that situation (see Alan Wake).

edit: I don't give Alan Wake as an example of an RPG. it (IMO) isn't, but as an example where the open world was scrapped part way into development for story reasons.

Polar101

Open World where you can interact with NPC - No Choices

Argos has a section for 'role playing & RPG games' (!) under their PS3 games web page, the games listed there are two Assassin's Creed games.

Temptamperu

An RPG is a game of math to me, enjoyable math figuring out the best way to make your character as powerful as possible no matter where the math lead. Story helps a lot too as I like stories and the are generally sprawling enough.
I cant wait to see what the "next gen" does with RPGs like Fallout and elder scrolls.

Washington Irving

Open World where you can interact with NPC - No Choices

Temptamperu wrote: »

An RPG is a game of math to me, enjoyable math figuring out the best way to make your character as powerful as possible no matter where the math lead. Story helps a lot too as I like stories and the are generally sprawling enough.
I cant wait to see what the "next gen" does with RPGs like Fallout and elder scrolls.

*maths

Varik

A Weapon that explodes

It's just down to character building, if you can start down a certain path while blocking or limiting access to others with any choice having at least some sense of permanence (it'll cost you change at least).