What constitutes as a RPG?

[Sinophile]

First of all let us look at the core meaning of the word, "role-playing". To play a role, as in "let's pretend". In most contexts it is simply make-believe for adults. In pretty much all video games, you are essentially playing pretend. In many ways, the concept of "RPG" is much more abstract than say, racing, fighting, first person shooter, etc. In the purest sense, something as simple as the Game "Battleship" can be considered an RPG, as you play the role of an Admiral.

 

 

 

"RPG Video Game" I close my eyes and instantly have flashbacks to the original "Final Fantasy" game on the old NES. However, when I simply say "RPG" I have flashbacks to my old "Dungeons & Dragons" days - which was a TRUE rpg no matter what anyone says.

Final Fantasy IMO is no more an RPG than a killer whale is an actual whale(orcas are closer to dolphins than whales). Final Fantasy, and most Japanese console RPGs are more adventure games, because the player doesn't really have much in the way of choices. Gary Gygax is a genius in the sense that he made an child's pastime acceptable for adults simply by adding numbers and dice to it.

By the same token, I would not consider titles such as Borderlands and Diablo RPGs, even though they systems of leveling up, classes, and other things.

 

At the core, to me anyway, an RPG Video game has the following features:

Would a game need to have all of these to be considered an RPG, or only some of these? Would simply having one of these characteristics(I.E. leveling up) make it an rpg?

[ub3rman123]

I think what qualifies for an RPG is if the character can have self-improvement. The most basic example I can think of this is Borderlands. It's hardly an RPG, but it does have the ability to level up and gain talents. So it counts.

 

I don't really play enough games to know what the most advanced RPG's are like.

[Ihoe]

“You are not truly a man [or woman] until you are at level 42”

Oscar Wilde on Roleplaying games

 

Welcome, noble adventurer, to the Lande of the Role Playing Game, or the RPG for short. Learning the Art of the RPG is a simple task for all but the most retarded of prospective adventurers, but beware of danger! Far from being peaceful Kingdoms of busty maidens and loveable comic relief sidekicks, RPG's are lands of terrible mages and foul breathed Dragons! But take heart! With nothing more than a mouse, a keyboard and one of the many RPG games available, you, an otherwise sad excuse for a human being, can become a powerful Mage-Knight in the services of the King's magnificent army!

 

That's a Classic RPG. Nowadays we've got 2 types of RPG games.

 

Crunchy games

 

Crunchy games have lots of numbers and let you roll lots of dice. Much of the time is spent optimizing your character (also called munchkinizing) so that he is way cooler and more powerful than those of the other players. In these games it is player vs. gamemaster. The gamemaster is the judge of the game who tells the players the outcome of their rolls and tries his best to kill them.

 

In terms of high school dynamics: players who prefer crunchy games are "the jocks" and those who prefer storytelling games are "the geeks". Most of them, no matter what type of gamer you are, has a distorted notion of reality and wouldn't know the difference between a girl and an ogre. "Jocks" would try to kill her while "geeks" probably would try to seduce, drink her blood and then kill her.

 

Storytelling games

 

Storytelling games were first played by goths who popularized Vampire: The Masquerade. Later, other social outcasts joined in and storytelling games took off. Storytelling games have very few stats and instead of simply rolling to see if you killed the enemy, the idea is to talk about the scenes and decide what happens that furthers the story. Sometimes there is no killing or looting, and crunchy gamers find this very confusing. Some storytelling games don't even involve paper or dice, and the main rules consist of complaining about how monstrous one is, how life is going to end terribly quick and trying to stop cataclysm is just stupid.

 

and take into account that one important part is character creation.

 

The first thing you must do is create a character. He must be strong, smart, brave, valiant, charismatic, and talented; in other words, he must be your opposite in every way. ((cowbell)) Most RPGs allow you to select various attributes to put 'skill points' into. Some common RPG attributes are:

1. Strength

2. Agility

3. Alcohol Retention

4. Improved Comedy Talent

5. Dwarf Tossing Ability

6. Friendliness

7. Shoe Size

8. Metabolism Rate

9. Odor

10. Political correctness

11. Masturbation rate and speed

Dialogue (VERY important)

 

An RPG must also have hundreds of pages of boring dialogue to make it seem as if something important were occurring within the game. Many is the hour spent listening to priests and lords telling you of impending evils, drunks telling you of the size of their 'pet snake' and old women asking you to please stop doing that to her cats.

 

Although tedious, dialogue serves an important function in RPGs: It progresses the story and gives you new information and quests to complete. Common character archetypes you'll encounter in an RPG are 'the old, tired fighter', 'the smart-ass wizard', the 'evil necromancer king', the 'blond elven wench', and 'the jovial baker' . Each of these characters has a separate dialogue tree and attitude. For example, the Baker is a nice character, who wishes you a good day and supplies you with Danishes and Eclaires if your Friendliness skill is high enough.

 

 

THAT constitutes as a classic RPG, the games specifically made for... [citation needed] .

otherwise :

Reality Player's Guide

 

RPG may also stand for the Reality Player's Guide. It is a best-selling book which tells you how everything in the world works. Even though real life may not look like it on the surface, these are the forces that govern the universe. Everything is for real, including death.

Rogue Pheasant Gang

 

Not only that, but RPG stands for Rogue Pheasant Gang, a notorious gang of pheasants who struck fear in the hearts of the residents of Eastern Europe in the late 18th century.

Report Program Generator

 

An IBM programming language that must have been started as a joke before anyone had discovered acid. The ability of the language to unhandle strings is only surpassed by a (red) hat's ability to be a jumper.

 

Later interviews with the creators of RPG revealed that the real meaning of the acronym is "Retarded Programming Guesswork."

Roll Pagan Game

 

Rolling pagans down a hill.

Raping People Group

 

A yahoo group on Yahoo.com, though no link can be provided for this group is hidden and run by the owners of yahoo themselves.

Really Pointless Game

 

A game that absolutely has no point and usually played by people or newts that are really bored

Rocket Powered Giraffe

Deadly, Tall, Spotted, and Rocket Powered. What more needs to be typed?

[Kalfear]

What constitutes a RPG? For me thats simple

 

RPGs are about the story, with combat (any style) proping up the story

 

Simple as that

 

Fall Out 3, not a RPG

Mass Effect 2, not a RPG

 

Both those titles had story but story wasnt the important aspect of game, combat was (in their case shooter combat for both). The stories were only there to prop up the combat, give it a reason. Which granted is a step up from normal shooters that really have no story at all beyond a short mission statement.

 

Now RPGs traditionally have elements like:

leveling

inventory

customization

exploration

 

but again, all these are support items for THE STORY.

 

Take The Witcher for example. SOME none RPG players trying to classify THEIR GAME (usually FO3 or ME2) as a RPG like to use The Witcher as a example as the combat so action orientated when compared to say KotOR or Dragon Age Origins. The thing these players forget is, yes the combat is twitchy to a degree, but at no time are you playing the game for the combat. You are ALWAYS advanacing the story. Your not aimlessly wandering through the Washington ruins killing anything that moves because it moved. You are always doing something to advance THE STORY!

 

So answer to OP is:

A RPG is simply a game that the story matters more then the combat! You can have terrible combat or groundbreaking combat in the RPG, it can be traditional turn base to the most twitchy combat system ever made. What ALL RPGs how in common is THE COMBAT COMES LAST (or close to) in terms of importance!

 

Story

Immersion

Romance

Combat

These are the 4 pillars (to use a Bioware Austin term) and they come down in this order!

[Sinophile]

Both those titles had story but story wasnt the important aspect of game, combat was (in their case shooter combat for both). The stories were only there to prop up the combat, give it a reason. Which granted is a step up from normal shooters that really have no story at all beyond a short mission statement.

While I agree with you that ME2 is simply a shooter with some rpg elements, I'd argue that story is in fact a very important aspect of the game. Much of what you do in ME1 has an effect in ME2. FO3 on the other hand, takes a more traditional approach to storytelling, as do other titles by Bethesda; They don't lambast you with cutscenes.Instead of somehow getting drafted into being a knight for the king or something, as is common in Bioware games, the player has much more involvement in which "role" that they play.

 

Take The Witcher for example. SOME none RPG players trying to classify THEIR GAME (usually FO3 or ME2) as a RPG like to use The Witcher as a example as the combat so action orientated when compared to say KotOR or Dragon Age Origins. The thing these players forget is, yes the combat is twitchy to a degree, but at no time are you playing the game for the combat. You are ALWAYS advanacing the story.

There is just as much Dungeon crawling in the Witcher as there is in FO3. In The Witcher, combat is inevitable, and oftentimes needed to advance the storyline, Whereas in FO3, much of it is avoidable and is mainly used to defend one's self while performing other objectives. Secondly, in the Witcher, the player is stuck with one class, the Eponymous Witcher, and has little customization, especially towards the end of the game. The player cannot choose to be a mage, a rogue, or a fighter. In FO3, the player has a greater range of choices in not only skillsets, but who they choose to be in the story. Heck, in the beginning of the game, you can even choose whether or not to blow up a whole town.

[Kalfear]

The difference between The Witcher Dungeon Crawl and Fall Out 3 is you never entered a dungeon with out a reason in the Witcher. Every location returned to the story at hand.

 

I defy someone to tell me the story behind, lets say, the Chrysler building in Fall Out 3? or the abandom school? or a whole host of other places that existed only for the sake of furthering the combat experience.

 

A dungeon crawl doesnt make or not make something a RPG, the reasoning behind it does or doesnt.

 

As for the story in ME1, ME1 was a RPG 110%, no if/and/buts about it. The story that carried over could have been the foundation of a brilliant RPG series of games. Instead Bioware minimalized them and in some cases ended them outright with no pay off at all. Because ME2 was all about the combat. The story in ME2 was just place holders (missions ala Halo or some other shooter game) to get you to more combat.

 

ME2 is a perfect example of the story proping up the combat rather then the combat proping up the story (as should be in RPG).

 

Should note, this doesnt make them bad games. Not my cup of tea but not bad games, they simply were not RPGs. RPGs are far deeper in structure then what FO3 or ME2 offered the player at any time.

[evilneko]

So, basically what you're saying is, an RPG cannot happen in a sandbox.

 

I disagree.

 

A well-constructed sandbox such as you have in Fallout 3 can be just as much a part of an RPG as anything else. The Chryslus building? Why, it's the corporate office of the Chryslus motor company, long since defunct due to the war, now inhabited mostly by (IIRC, I believe I've only been inside it once) Super Mutants. The Springvale Elementary School? Aside from the obvious, it's the base camp of a group of raiders trying to dig their way into vault 101. Why are these buildings there? Why shouldn't they be?

 

Now, I've never played The Witcher, so I shall compare it to Mass Effect.

 

In Mass Effect, you crawl dungeons in search of money, upgrades, or story or even just for sheer curiosity's sake. There are many dungeons which are optional and can be skipped. There are some which are not. The optional dungeons have varying degrees of lore behind them. Many are there "simply to further the combat experience" however. The mandatory ones have the full weight of the main plot behind them, of course.

 

It is worth noting, Mass Effect happens in a sandbox. Do you consider it an RPG? Mind you, I refer to the original when I say Mass Effect.

 

In Fallout 3, you crawl dungeons in search of money, upgrades, or story, or even just for sheer curiosity's sake. There are many dungeons which are optional and can be skipped. There are some which are not. Most if not all have at least some lore behind them, a raison d'être if you will. Some have very little, as befits the 200 years post-apocalypse setting. Some have more.

 

Mass Effect 2 notably stripped out most of the optional dungeons. Most of the remaining ones have at least some reason to exist, though some have no reason at all beyond a points reward. Everything else has a fair amount of story behind it. Some interesting, some just "meh". I do not include Loyalty Missions under the category of "optional" for my purposes.

 

From your description of The Witcher, at worst case it sounds very JRPGish to me, in which you are simply being dragged along by the plot rather than participating in it. At best, it sounds very much like Mass Effect 2.

 

Near-constant combat (or at least, threat of combat) is simply an aspect of Fallout 3's sandbox, part of the setting. And it's a good setting. I enjoy it a lot, and find it highly conducive to role-playing, which is important, when you're playing a role-playing game.

[Ihoe]

The difference between The Witcher Dungeon Crawl and Fall Out 3 is you never entered a dungeon with out a reason in the Witcher. Every location returned to the story at hand.

 

I defy someone to tell me the story behind, lets say, the Chrysler building in Fall Out 3? or the abandom school? or a whole host of other places that existed only for the sake of furthering the combat experience.

 

A dungeon crawl doesnt make or not make something a RPG, the reasoning behind it does or doesnt.

 

As for the story in ME1, ME1 was a RPG 110%, no if/and/buts about it. The story that carried over could have been the foundation of a brilliant RPG series of games. Instead Bioware minimalized them and in some cases ended them outright with no pay off at all. Because ME2 was all about the combat. The story in ME2 was just place holders (missions ala Halo or some other shooter game) to get you to more combat.

 

ME2 is a perfect example of the story proping up the combat rather then the combat proping up the story (as should be in RPG).

 

Should note, this doesnt make them bad games. Not my cup of tea but not bad games, they simply were not RPGs. RPGs are far deeper in structure then what FO3 or ME2 offered the player at any time.

it's Fallout 3, not Fall Out 3.(ever heard of nuclear fallout?)

what you define as a RPG, is a non-sandbox game coupled with a mashed up story to cover the content it provides. lowering it's replay value. I've played the witcher and it's story which was a ripoff had no "RPG Effect" on it. Would you go in the building you mentioned if an objective instructed you to?

 

Role playing, self explantory, you play as a smith, king, ant. You take a role. Now in my antithesis against your antithesis, a roleplaying game needs to give you a role in something non-generic with the option to change roles. Not ME with gay sheppard or ME2 with zombie sheppard.

 

Nuff said about ME, relying on a game to define the constitution of A genre of games is, very immature in my opinion.

[Kalfear]

(sighs) try this one more time

 

I said nothing about sandbox games. You can still have stories inside a sandbox game. Fall Out 3 had a few stories here and there but not enough to change the focus from shooter to RPG.

 

Fall Out 3 was a shooter/exploration game. Exploration doesnt instantly make something a RPG. There is exploration in every game out there, yet every game is NOT a RPG!

 

Give me a story behind entering the Chrysler building, THATs a RPG. Just have abuilding for me to explore and shoot things in, thats a shooter.

 

sandbox doesnt enter the discription!

 

I been playing Computer games since the start of computers (and RPGs long before that) and never have I seen sandbox = RPG. Sandbox is just a wide open playing space. you can still have reason and individual stories for each place in a sandbox game.

 

Example, standing outside the chrysler building is a man who tells you mutants are holding his sister captive inside and will you help him? You enter and fight but also puzzle solve to work your way down to where sister is being held, you save her and return her to brother!

 

Thats about as simplistic as they can get but thats still more then Fall Out 3 had for over half its world playing space.

 

Sandbox doesnt enter the equation. once again STORY is the main focus of a RPG.

 

Though ill admit, if I played a game (lets call it Mass Effect 2) where the stories were so simplistic and basic as what I discribed above, id be hard pressed to take it serious as a RPG as well because, me personally, I have higher standards and expect more from my RPGs.

 

Sandbox, linear, those just discriptions of how you go about getting to the end story. They are not excuses to not have story!

[evilneko]

Nice strawman, I never said sandbox == RPG (that's quite ridiculous, and would make GTA and RPG series, then again, see my very first post in this thread...), but I think I'm getting the picture here.

 

To be blunt I completely, utterly, disagree with your standard. At this point, we will agree to disagree, your mind will not be changed by anything I say. You may skip the rest of my post to save yourself some time, as my further explanation of why I disagree is not directed at you but the thread in general.

 

While I see the appeal of games that tell you what to do, when to do it, where to do it, and who to do it to, for everything that there is to do in the world, and occasionally indulge in them myself, I also enjoy freedom. Fallout 3 (and by extension, Oblivion, though I find it far less interesting) gives me that, and yet, it still had plenty of stories--if you paid attention, anyway. Why go to the Chryslus building? Well, there was this guy at Moriarty's, or perhaps, my child character just loves cars, and is hoping to find a pristine example inside, or at least some information. I don't need to be dragged by the nose everywhere I go. Doesn't mean I'm not still playing a role-playing game.

 

A role-playing game needn't always provide the entire story set in frikkin' stone. It's okay to leave some of it a mystery, or better, up to the player to create. That is, after all, the entire point. D&D--and, by extension, the entire RPG genere--would be nothing, would not even be here today, without the imaginations of its players. By Kalfear's standard, D&D's not an RPG. It has no story, it is merely a setting (and hell, the original didn't even provide that!), a framework, a set of mechanics. It's up to the DM to provide the story. I've been involved in lots of roleplays. Some of the most memorable came out of just such a setup.

 

Now that I think about it, I realize what the heart of my disagreement with Kalfear is: I don't equate quests with story, whereas he seems to do so to the exclusion of most anything else.