Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Something I wanted to post a while ago, but was inspired to actually do it by the FFXII thread, where I wished to debate things but realized it might not be on topic.

Anyway, I am wondering what everyone thinks an RPG is. Specifically, I'm talking console RPGs, not pen and paper. No answer is wrong per say, but there seems to be plenty of dissagreement on what qualifies.

Its been argued that technically, all video games are RPG's in the sense that you play a role of a character (your own creation or a predetermined one), and proceed through their adventures. So that even games like Pong and the original Mario Bros. would be RPGs.

However, most agree that the RPG genre tend to fall along the lines of a Final Fantasy game, with numerous cut-scenes, long drawn out stories, leveling system (this would include individual stat-leveling alla Final Fantasy II and Final Fantasy Legends).

Then there is also the "Action-RPG", under which games like the Zelda series, Soul Blazer series, and Secret of Mana series. Some argue these are not RPGs mainly because they have real-time battle systems, and because you only ever control one person the entire game.

Nonetheless, the Soul Blazer series (which includes Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma) are chock full of story, cutscenes, treasure hunting, magic, leveling, learning new skills over time, and even have some hidden bosses to unlock new areas.

Zelda, on the other hand, may be pushing it. The video game industry itself defines Zelda as an RPG, but the series seems to defy a few standards. It is heavily action based, without any sort of stat-building system. Link does find new and better equipment and magics, but Link himself never gets any stronger or faster. Story, for RPG standards, is pretty minimal.

Beyond that, I've noticed that two other game series, Metroid and Castlevania (more recent games in the series anyway), are virtually identicle to Legend of Zelda, at least in gaming concept. In all three series you obtain new equpiment and new powers (suit upgrades or magics) by exploring the world and discovering them. Samus, Link, and [insert Castlevania character here] must use these new abilities to further progress through the game, as the new equipment allows you to get past barriers you couldn't before.

Heck, recent Castlevania games even incorporate a levelling system. However, I've never heard Metroid or Castlevania refered to as RPGs. Maybe because they have always taken a side-scroller format, as opposed to an overhead view like every "standard" RPG (not including the 3-D era). Or maybe because they lack a more indepth story.

Anyway, no answers are wrong, really, in the end, if the industry says its an RPG, I guess its an RPG, and vice versa.

But what say you?

--------------------

And behold, I saw a Pale Gaming System, and the name of he who rode it was Squaresoft, and Enix followed him.

A level/stat manipulation system is present in many genres not classified as an RPG. Many action/adventure genres have one. Even GTA:SA has a stat levelling system, and that is not an RPG (unless you use the litteral "role-playing game" definition, in which case pretty much every game is an RPG.)

A skill-learning system is also present in non-RPGs. Some fighting games allow you to unlock abilities by completing certain battles (such as that one fighting game with anthropomorphic characters for the SNES,
forgot the name...)

Many non-RPGs have an in-depth storyline. Arguably RPGs put the focus on especially in-depth ones, but not all do. Final Fantasy I's storyline was, quite frankly, uninteresting: save the crystals, etc etc. Garland was an interesting twist, but that was it for storyline elements. The NES mario series went more in-depth than that (with the exclusion of the first one.)

Character parties are present in non-RPGs. For instance, GTA allows you to have gang members. Nothing would stop me from making a first-person shooter with characters and a storyline, but it wouldn't make it an RPG.

Side-quests are present in many games. The parodius series had a lot of things to do, for instance. For example, you had 100 fairies to collect throughout the game in the third one, which unlocked stuff. And that's a shoot-em-up. It also features hidden levels with uber-difficult bosses.

Puzzles and dungeons are even in first-person shooters. And even survival-horror games have puzzles (arguably bad ones; cf the PSX Resident Evils.)

Given the fact that very few console RPGs are open-ended, I doubt that'd be a very valid point. Taking Final Fantasy I, for instance, I've seen shoot-em-ups with a less linear path (the Darius series, which allows for a very non-linear path.)

The one thing RPGs have that other games don't have is a battle screen. Not all RPGs have random encounters (FFMQ), but wether the transition between map and battle is flawless (CT) or very unlike what you were walking around in (EB), you always find yourself entering a different mode of play, either turn-based or semi-turn-based (the ATB comes to mind.)

I'd also like to point out that I consider there to be a massive difference between a true RPG (such as a tabletop game; AD&D, Alternity, etc..) and a console RPG (where you are constrained by the game's limits; we have yet to create games with interesting auto-generated worlds and plots that aren't simply picked from a list.)

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Definitely skill building. What I mean is that a White Mage may have Cure, but it should be called Cure, Lv.1, then at level 2 Cure2, Lv.3 Cura, Lv.4 Cure3, Lv.5 Curaga, Lv.6 Cure4, Lv.7 Curaja, and level 8, Full-Cure. It could go on like this. Then, also customization. I don't want to be stuck with the same characters if I start the game over. For example, you can start the game as a Warrior, then as a White Mage, Black Mage, Monk, etc. And race selection, too. Race specific classes as well, like Paladin for humans, Ranger for an elf-like race, and Sage for a magic-wielding race. Random battles are boring, but randomly generated dungeons are good. No seperate battle screen, you just walk around and then monsters ambush you or the other way around. Also, no specific items, like Mythril Sword or Wizard Staff. Spice it up a little by doing something like Superior Mythril Sword of Poison or Wizard Staff of Frost. Mind-boggling puzzles, side-quests, mini-games and secret bosses are a definitely replay value plus. The open-ended ending is nice as well. For example, finishing the game with all side-quests completed for the best ending and a rushed-through game gives the worst ending.

--------------------

Yunalesca: "Hope is...comforting. It allows us to accept fate, however tragic it might be. "

Yunalesca: "Poor creature. You would throw away hope. Well... I will free you before you can drown in your sorrow. It is better for you to die in hope than to live in despair. Let me be your liberator. "

an rpg to me is where the decions that you make for your char affect what happens for instance if you take on kobolds then the orges will come to defend thier allies but if you *can* backstab the strike force then you forge a kobold alliance and get orges to help you attack a base.

In games like FF you cant kill people inside towns or help the demon lord win, no role playing at all. games cant really be rpgs becuase no matter what you stuck inside certain condtions that cant be broken you can never become more then the programmers allowed you cant make cities, have kids and raise people from generation to generation i.e. true role playing ive never seen a game with all these elements

--------------------

procastinate now, dont put it off

You obviously haven't played Morrowind, Fable, or Knights of the Old Republic. You can kill ordinary people in towns and help evil. Morrowind has no evil/good alignment but if you kill a guard or someone you get bounty and the guards will be after you. In Knights of the Old Republic you can threaten and taunt people if you don't like them or are evil. Eventually your ending and appearance will be changed because of your alignment.

--------------------

Yunalesca: "Hope is...comforting. It allows us to accept fate, however tragic it might be. "

Yunalesca: "Poor creature. You would throw away hope. Well... I will free you before you can drown in your sorrow. It is better for you to die in hope than to live in despair. Let me be your liberator. "

I agree with Silverlance, 'cept on one point: Not all games catagorized as "true" RPG's incorporate a battle screen. This mainly (if not fully) applies to action RPG's, though not all (such as the Star Ocean series, etc.). Kingdom Hearts, for example, doesn't shift screens nor limit you to a small area during random battles - sure, your command menu turns red, but that's hardly a big enough change to consider it a "battle screen".

I always thought - or at least used to think, anyway - that console RPG's were games that had some sorta connection, in essence, to Dungeons & Dragons (i.e, strict medieval settings and classes, stats including properties like strengths and weaknesses, magic arranged by numerical levels, etc.). The earliest console RPG's obviously followed this same formula, but only a few years later, notably during the SNES/Genesis era, most RPG's broke away from this and formed new standards within the genre. Nowadays it's to the point where there really isn't anything that distinguishes them from other games since they've long been outta line with what were pure RPG qualities.

So I'd say it's up to the player. If it feels/plays like an RPG to you, then you can probably call it one.

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

I always saw RPGs as a Level-Stat building system and turn-based battles, but Diablo is an RPG series and not turn-based and other non-RPGs have some sort of stat/leveling system. RPGs I see as having an in-game "Character Portrait/Profile" listing stats, skills, and abilities under the menu. Do any other non-Rpgs have any equivalence of menu status screens for the character(s) that you know of?

--------------------

"Thought I was dead, eh? Not until I fulfill my dream!"
Seifer Almasy


"The most important part of the story is the ending."
Secret Window


"Peace is but a shadow of death."
Kuja

Well, to start from the beginning, what defines an 'RPG' has changed. To really know what an RPG is you need to look at what games have been defined as RPGs over time.

I think in the late 80s/early 90s it was easy to define an RPG. Games like Gargoyle's Quest, Castlevania II, Battle of Olympus and so on were easily labelled as RPGs for 'one' defining factor; Interactivity with NPCs in villages and such. As this was 'very' far from the run-of-the-mill left-to-right adventure games, the definition was quite understadable. Even in terms of story this could been seen, just compare them to the likes of Mario and Sonic and the 'interactive story' (IE: A story told throughout the game, rather than just defined at the start of a level) was quite a change to the norm.

Of course this is much harder to define these days as many games have both long stories and character interactivity, so what else defines an RPG?

Well for one, menus. OH GOD THE MENUS! Menus serve to check and tweak your characters, changing equipment, giving them spells, accessories, and so on. While games such as Metal Gear Solid 3 may have menus, they’re not quite the same. RPG games such as Zelda allow you to turn on and off special items you’ve acquired throughout your quest, set spells, and change weapons making the character stronger, faster, smarter etc. While normal game characters generally just stay the same, but earn new items.

Next you have the interactive world. Characters in an RPG usually have totally free movement to where they can go, even back to places they don’t even need to be anymore, sometimes information will even turn up in previous places. For the ‘most’ part adventure games will set up their games with levels to complete, then you leave. While some games like Spyro allow you to return to levels, you can usually get everything the level has in one shot.

Now for games like GTA it’s very hard to define. While it does have RPG elements, it also has racing elements, but you wouldn’t call it a racing game. For the most part GTA is a simulator game but with a much more advanced system. In fact many games like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Onimusha, or even Dynasty Warriors 2-5 use a stat levelling system, and this system is often referred to as ‘RPG like’ but over all the amount the characters can be tweaked is very limited.

Elements like ‘multi-character parties’ can be seen in games like Sonic the Hedgehog 2 but that’s obviously not an RPG. Multi-character parties in RPGs are common, but not a defining feature.
Turn-based is the usual defining feature of a strategy RPG, but otherwise it’s not even what you’d call traditional as games like Star Ocean, Teranigma, and Tales of Phantasia were using action-style systems years ago, as were none-random battles in games like Chrono Trigger and ‘some’ of Live-a-Live.

--------------------

The Arcana are the means by which ALL is revealed.

I agree with a lot of the things said before, but I feel that the best answer to the poll was multiple character parties. I also think that an RPG needs to be story and character driven, menu-navigating in part, and feature some kind of progressive growth system, be it leveling or otherwise, but several games that incorporate only one or two of those three AREN'T RPGs, including Zelda, SoulBlazer/Terranigma/Gaia, Castlevania, Mega Man, and Metroid. You can make RPG arguments for any of those games with certain examples, but none of them have the uniting feature of party-based combat, be it random battling like Final Fantasy or free-roaming action like Kingdom Hearts.

Games like Mega Man, Metroid, Castlevania, and Zelda all have skill acquisition/leveling/upgrading as core to the gameplay, but it is very difficult to call any of those besides possibly Zelda an RPG. Outside of say, RTS, it is difficult to call any game with a party-oriented combat system something other than an RPG. There is no good answer to this question but it is certainly something that can be argued to no end.

This post has been edited by laszlow on 10th April 2005 21:10

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

It's always been leveling for me. Problem is you can't have levels without some kind of random encounter, a good battle system... it gets all too complicated to truly define an rpg. Still, I go with levels.

--------------------

This is my world: (Got my second chapter up, 3rd Chapter about 80% complete)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/daniel876/homepage.html

Warning: disorganized rant below.

Interestingly, I recently had a conversation with someone who differentiated between 'European' and 'Japanese' RPGs (I know, they're not the best terms to use ever). It took me a while to realize that what he meant by 'Japanese' RPGs are games like FF, CT, etc., and what he meant by 'European' is something I don't have a good example on hand for (since I know very few of them, but an example he seemed to accept is Diablo).

The term 'role-playing game' is pretty vague inherently vague. As many people, including our very own Silverlance, have pointed out, the player plays a 'role' of some sort in just about every game. Ruling out some of the most basic games (there is no real well-defined ''role' that Pac-Man occupies), in just about all videogames you're playing the role of some other character. You may be playing the role of Juste Belmont of trying to rescue his friends Maxim and Lydie in Castlevania: Harmony of Darkness, or the role of Samus Aran in exploring planet Zebes, or the role(s) of the FFV cast in saving the world. So the name of the genre is not good defining characteristic. We must look further.

Each of the characteristics you've mentioned here is present in a lot of RPGs (and many present in non-RPGs as well), but I don't count them as defining characteristics. That's because you don't necessarily need all of them for an RPG to exist. (Do you need at least one? Maybe...I haven't quite figured out that one yet.) Not only that; not one or even several of these actually contain some 'essence of the RPG' or anything like that.

On the other hand, it may be an emphasis, or a lack. Or some combination thereof.

Many RPGs have an emphasis on the game's plot (although not necessarily). This plot may be anything from nearly fixed (as in the case of Super Mario RPG) to completely non-predefined (as in Dungeons and Dragons), but usually, the more well-defined, the more emphasis.

Most RPGs have a lack of 'direct action' (e.g. B button to attack, up+B=special attack), and along with this, have often unrealistically-structured battles. This of course explains the so-called (and according to me, mis-named) 'Mega Man RPG' found on Newgrounds.com. Of course, this point isn't present in all RPGs either; Tales of Phantasia is an example that attempted to implement 'direct action'.

(This lack of 'direct action' ends up making a great many RPGs 'sit-down games', as in a person can relax and plan things out slowly and take gameplay easy. (Maybe this is why I sometimes prefer them over other genres?))

Also present in most RPGs is a high level of strategizing. Of course, the amount varies from game to game, but this ranges from simple (equipment distribution, level-up bonuses, and inventory for Super Mario RPG) to the complex (Materia combinations in FFVII, choices of six Pokemon, tactical strategy in tactical RPGs). (Note that strategy doesn't involve just tactical ('battlefield') strategy.)

But RPGs are much, much more than just massive games of chess. Choosing your party's character classes and planning out battle attack sequences in FF1 aren't the only important things in that game. There's also the aspect that you're fulfilling a quest. Hence, influence of the plot/story. Maybe an RPG is a strategy game with a strong story-based component.

As for whether Zelda is an RPG series; I've only played LoZ: a Link to the Past (SNES), and I'd say it's definitely a borderline case. While it has a definite emphasis on the quest that Link is trying to fulfill, it doesn't deal too deep in strategy. There are moments when you have to 'think about' something (such as how you have to figure out how get that unbombable crack on the pyramid open, or how to beat Agahnim), they don't offer the depth that FFIIIj or FFV has in terms of advance-planning. LoZ:aLttP also has what should probably be considered direct action gameplay. Is it a role-plaing game? I'll say it is. Barely.

Which actually made me think about something. It's about the significance of the 'role' you're playing. In Super Mario Bros., Mario is almost just like any other pixelated videogame 'hero'...run, jump, duck, shoot fireballs, etc. (when it comes to other games). But (using FFVI as an example, since most of us are familiar with it) there's something in FFVI that makes us relate on a nearly personal level to characters like Terra and Locke and Setzer. So maybe it's the depth of character perception?

Well, unless Sara and Desh and Allus and Eria and Guzco and etc. had actually fought alongside your team of four (not-so-?)little heroes in FFIIIj, that might not be the case. Just as the so-called 'OnionKids' didn't get much character development, the protagonist boy (or girl, in newer versions) of Pokemon games doesn't either, and character development is completely up to the players and the dungeon master in D&D. But maybe that's because FFIIIj and Pokemon are more strategy-focused, so they have less character development...so is an RPG a game with emphasis on plot AND strategy or characterization (or both)? Maybe.

I can't answer the question comprehensively without somehow including too many games or excluding established RPGs. So I'll just throw these thoughts into the ring and see how they develop.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

The short answer: An RPG is a book on console.

Quote (SaintWeapon @ 11th April 2005 04:17)

The short answer: An RPG is a book on console.

Come to think of it, I think SaintWeapon has probably the least inaccurate characterization of an RPG that I've ever seen. (Well, there goes my rant. It doesn't compare to the precision or brevity that SaintWeapon has presented.)

Keep in mind that a book can tell a story, but a book can also describe a world/country/area.

(Mods: Sorry about posting so soon after my earlier post in this topic, but I think SaintWeapon's comment is very worthy of such notice.)

This post has been edited by Glenn Magus Harvey on 11th April 2005 19:21

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

I agree with SaintWeapons answer. RPG's are really classified based on the fact that you are controlling characters where progression through the game unfolds a large story. Interactive Theatre of a sort. A funny thing is that FFIV they clearly wanted you to think of in this manner. Your characters could actually be seen walking on "stage" and taking their positions in between cut scenes for instance.

If you don't know what I'm talking about fight up to Zeromus again, and watch what happens just after they show everyone praying. You might have to turn up your brightness a little bit.

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

For both the real RPG's, as the computer ones, what counts for me is:
The storyline, the adventure or intrigue made by either the programmers or the GM...
The world, open too change and non-ending...
And the cast of charachters... (yes, it IS nice in real RPG when other players put heart into their charachters)

--------------------

"I fell off the mountain of words at around the 10,000ft mark. Tell my family...they owe me money." -Narratorway

"If you retort against this, so help me God I'll shove any part of your anatomy I can find into some other part. Figuratively, of course." - Josh

"We have more, can deliver tuesday." - Del S

Good old CoN

I find myself with a lonely vote for "Skill Learning System." I think that all decent RPGs need to have more than just that, but that one seems to stick out a lot. I think this mainly because, whenever I discuss a a game not classified as an RPG with someone, sometimes we say, "Oh did you here about that <insert name of a game sequel>? I heard they are adding RPG elements into it." Real examples of games I've discussed are GTA: Vice City/San Andreas, Command & Conquer, and Time Crisis 3. However, whenever I talk with anybody about this, "RPG elements" always invariably ends up meaning "skill building" or "experience building." Almost like stat manipulation, but not quite. Inherent things always remain the same. Also, I cannot think of a single RPG that doesn't have any type of skill-building system built into it.

Or maybe I'm all wacko and this is all complete opinon, too, I guess. My eyes look like this right now, and my head feels like this , so I might not be able to notice between fact and opinion. Maybe I need a little more rest.

Or I can just say none of these, because a RPG requires a rocket and a grenade or other shaped charge, and some type of launching mechanism.

I voted for Random battles, but that's only because it's closest to what I think. I define the line between RPGs and adventures as any game where someone could still play and do well despite having to think for 2 seconds before pressing a button. So this person could beat games like any Final Fantasy or Chrono Trigger by setting the mode to "wait" and slowing the battles down as much as possible, but they wouldn't have much of a chance in a game like Secret of Mana or Zelda.

--------------------

Hip-Hop QOTW:

"Yeah, where I'ma start it at, look I'ma part of that
Downtown Philly where it's realer than a heart attack
It wasn't really that ill until the start of crack
Now it's a body caught every night on the Almanac"

"Game Theory"
The Roots

Time for an update: Look at the following list, copied and pasted from the link below.

http://www.cavesofnarshe.com/forums/ipb/in...?showtopic=5962

Kappa's list of personal favorite RPGs:

Final Fantasy III
Final Fantasy IV
Final Fantasy VI
Final Fantasy VII
Final Fantasy VIII
Final Fantasy X
Final Fantasy Legend III (SaGa 3)
Chrono Trigger
Wild Arms 2
Star Ocean 2
Super Mario RPG
Castlevania SOTN
Castlevania Harmony of Dissonance
Castlevania Aria of Sorrow
Castlevania Lament of Innocence
Tactics Ogre: The Knight of Lodis
Legend of Zelda a Link to the Past
Legend of Zelda Links Awakening
Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time
Chrono Cross
Xenogears
Star Ocean 2
Legacy of Kain
Ragnarok Online
Well of Souls
Priston Tale

Of these, I don't know Priston Tale or Well of Souls. Legacy of Kain and Tactics Ogre I've barely heard of, and Ragnarok Online I know to be an MMORPG. Other than that, we see represented the major RPG series: Final Fantasy, Chrono, Star Ocean, Wild Arms, and the singular Super Mario RPG. However, Kappa has also listed games from a certain series--Castlevania--which aren't usually considered RPGs, as well as the famous borderline case of The Legend(s) of Zelda.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with what Kappa posted. The point I wanted to make, which Kappa's post reminded me of, is that for some games, it's up to the player to determine whether the course of the game has sufficient depth for it to be considered a role-playing game.

Which also inspires another view of the RPG: gameplay 'depth'. I don't quite know how to define 'depth', but just as for RPGs (and just as for US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (if I recall correctly) regarding pornography), 'I know it when I see it.' Games like Pac-Man are much 'shallower' than games like FFXI, for example. I know I've spoken of 'depth' before, but that pertained in particular to depth of character development and characterization. Here, I'm referring to a general 'depth' of the game. Though, does this mean that RPGs are generally the most complex of games?

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

If Legach of Kain is anything li*e Legach of Kain: Blood Omen (t)e one g me in the series that I've played), then it isn'*t an rp" at all, more like a mo ern Pri*ce of Persia or Devil M y Cry or modern Zelda: open-end d action.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER