What is, and is not, an RPG?

[WindupAtheist]

I've had a similar thread about GTA:SA here before, but I'll broaden the scope a bit this time.  Here's a list of games from various platforms and eras.  Which of them qualify as an RPG, and which do not?  Why?

Diablo 2
Ultima 4
Angband
Secret of Mana
Final Fantasy 7
Gauntlet
Blood Omen:  Legacy of Kain
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
Legend of Zelda: Wind Walker
Morrowind

If being too linear disqualifies a game, then Japan hasn't made an RPG in ages.  If abstract turn-based combat is a requirement for an RPG, then Morrowind can take it's aiming reticle and go home.  If neither of those things matters, what disqualifies something like Gauntlet?  Even most of the less-linear games on this list only have one way of being beaten.  I can be bad in Ultima 4, but I'll never win the game that way.

[Riggswolfe]

This is all highly subjective. And there is basically a wide spectrum with "true rpg" at one end and "has some elements" on the other.

Generally:

Needs to have a story
Needs to have a character you can modify and improve in some way, this ranges from full stats to getting new weapons
Needs to encourage the player to "roleplay" their character

I'll break it down into 3 categories:
True RPG, Rpg-lite, Rpgish (borrows elements from an rpg but is not one)

True RPGs from your list:

Ultima 4
Secret of Mana
Final Fantasy 7
Morrowind

RPG-lite:

Legend of Zelda: Wind Walker

Zelda, as fun as it is just barely rises above platformer with rpgish elements

Rpgish:

Diablo 2
Gauntlet
Blood Omen:  Legacy of Kain
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

I didn't put Angband in any of these categories because I haven't heard of it.

[Sky]

Diablo 2 - action game
Ultima 4 - rpg
Gauntlet - action game
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - rpg
Legend of Zelda: Wind Walker - rpg
Morrowind - rpg

I think it's mostly having a story and playing a role within it. I don't remember if D2 had a story, but I mostly remember walking around clicking monsters and looking at my inventory screen. So maybe a case could be made, I just didn't play enough to know because I didn't like it. Gauntlet is not an rpg at all. Both of these games are action/combat games. I never personified with my avatar in either of those games, which I think is an important part of an rpg, too, whether you create an avatar or play a pre-rolled guy like CJ. GTA:SA is a great rpg.

I don't worry about combat type or having a stats screen or inventory.  All that stuff has to support the story and help you interact with the world. I wish more games would be friendlier to multiple paths to victory, ie: there's no Evil Link. In that regard, player decisions making an impact on the story, Bioware rules supreme. Bethesda tries, but can't quite pull off a BG2 evil party or a KotOR sith party.

[Yegolev]

Those are all RPGs and you are gay for starting this thread.

[Signe]

I call everything I play online an MMO.  Even ordering pizza online is an MMO.  I know I'm often wrong, but I don't care.

PS  I had no idea you were gay!  Of course, I have no "dar" at all.  Of any kind.  Sexuality, gender, race, nationality... especially nationality.  I confuse Latinos with Asians, Arabs with Italians, little boys with little girls, etc.  I've given up trying and keep my conversations with people I don't know well very vague. 

[Trippy]

Needs to have a story

No (beyond the faintest whispers of one).

Needs to have a character you can modify and improve in some way, this ranges from full stats to getting new weapons

Yes.

Needs to encourage the player to "roleplay" their character

No.

[Sairon]

If you go by the definition then I guess anything with something at least remotely resembling a story would qualify for the R in RPG. In my opinion however anything which has some sort of character developing system would classify as a RPG.

[Venkman]

It doesn't need a good linear story. It just needs a sense of narrative. This is why I think FPS games are just called FPS games because of how avatars are driven by the players. In actuality, most FPS games actually have a narrative component to them nowadays. And the stories there are no worse than those in MMORPGs.

RPGs have characters that can improve in them, but I do not feel it is a requirement that this improvement come from stats that increase through actions and gear. That's only how its been since Ultima, but Ultima didn't invent RPGs. It just did for computer gaming what Tolkien did for western Fantasy: formalized a bunch of rules everyone since decided to follow.

FPS games also have character improvement. The player gets better at driving the character, with that improvement easily seen by others in that game world. And, that's even measured by the game itself in the forms of kill/death count, ladder tournaments and the like.

Finally, "roleplay" is required, but again not specific to RPGs. People are ALL playing a role in any game they log into. The BF1942 medic is playing a role just as the WoW Mage is.

I find it annoying that FPS and RPG are still separate. Yes, I know, someone figured out that labelling them as such means appealing to different gamers. But there's more similarities at the abstract level than differences. The only real difference is how the moment-by-moment experienced is managed. And that to me is nothing more than UI.

[stray]

FPS's are mostly defined by their game mechanics. Not narrative and character development. The main selling point of almost any FPS is what unique ideas it brings to gameplay and, in many cases, how well it simulates reality (graphics wise, weapon wise, etc). Not what the story is, who the characters are, or even what the setting is for that matter. All of that stuff is secondary.

Secondly, multiplayer is mostly what they're about and played for anyways. Calling them RPG's would be stupid. You don't roleplay in a deathmatch. Half of the time, the narrative is only there to get you acquainted with the mechanics anyways --- A tutorial for the multiplayer component, if you will.

The distinction is a good one.

[edit]

The BF1942 medic is playing a role just as the WoW Mage is.

The Medic is "playing a role" in the most loose sense of the word. More like "serving a function". He or she is not a character (and anyone who'd presume that while playing the game should be shot immediately).

[Strazos]

In a FPS, unless the avatar itself has stats and abilities, it is not the avatar which improves in your world, Darniaq, but the actual player.

By your reasoning, we should be saying that Counterstrike and Quake are RPGs, which they are clearly not.

[Akkori]

Roleplaying with a keyboard is gay. Therefore there are NO RPG computer games. Pen & Paper RPG FTW!! Bring on the pizza, the gem dice sets, my DM screen, and godly power!!

[stray]

I do think, however, that Adventure games are role playing games.

In fact, I think they're better role playing games than actual computer role playing games. I don't have a lot of experience with paper and pen rpg's, but from what little I know, Adventures games seem to replicate the experience in a much more rich way than crpg's do. Computer RPG's mostly suck -- gameplay wise, as well as role playing wise. I really don't understand the fascination with them.

[Kail]

Well, RPG stands for "Role Playing Game," which I think is sanskrit for "Everyone's last name is LEVEL (X)", so that would make Diablo, Final Fantasy, Ultima, and Morrowind RPGs.

Really, beyond that, this distinction is kind of pointless.  RPGs HAVE to be defined by their mechanics, because there is nothing beyond that in the game; the player brings everything else in with them.  Games that encourage roleplaying?  How does Baldur's Gate (or whatever) encourage "Role Playing" more than Quake or Warcraft II?  Games that have stories, or upgradeable main characters?   Every game ever made has had that to some degree.  Doom has a story, it has an upgradeable main character ("You got the BFG!" "DING!").  I can go into the single player mode and type "wither didst these demons cometh from, thou?" or perform whatever action it is that you care to define as "roleplaying" in Doom just as easily as I can do it in any other game.  Does that make Doom an RPG?  No, it just means I'm a freak.  Trying to define a product by what it's idiot end user does with it is futile.

[Tebonas]

Customizable character development, thats the only criteria I would cite for being a computer role playing game.

GOOD roleplaying game, that would be an entirely different story.

You can't compare CRPGS with Pen&Paper RPGs though, entirely different gaming experience.

[stray]

This is probably way off any point mentioned here, but one thing I've always found strange is how traditional rpg combat (and all the things that go with it, like rolls and stats) is considered so vital even for computer role playing games.

In pen and paper rpg's, it makes perfect sense to have that kind of system, since there isn't any practical way to approximate real time action. But when switched to a medium that can handle real time (like computers), most rpg'ers still demand the old way of doing things. They don't care for the advantages a real time, computer based platform offers them. They insist on using the computer platform to approximate a pen and paper, turn and roll based system.

The best analogy I can think of is if a group of old typewriter users insisted that their versions of Microsoft Word made them perform the digital equivalent of manual carriage returns.

Why don't they just use typewriters then?

Why don't computer rpg'ers just play pnp rpgs, if that's what they really want?

Furthermore, these computer based rpg's are generally poor at replicating the pen and paper adventure and multiplayer experience. Computer rpg's are more linear and less open ended (and almost always contain the same damn orphan story). They barely demand players to actually roleplay or be creative.

Basically, my point is: What the fuck is the point of computer rpg's?

They're a waste of time and a misuse of computing power. They fail at what they're trying to replicate. There isn't any good reason why they should exist. And I'll be damned if "RPG" becomes some kind of umbrella term for all games. Rather, I'd like the see the acronym disappear entirely.

[Tebonas]

Thats easy to answer. You don't have a P&P group at call every time you want to play. Most groups settle for once a week at best once people get actual lives (a job, a steady girlfriend/wife/family). Computer RPGs you can play when you like to. When your wife watches her soap, when your kids are asleep. Incidently thats one of the reasons I don't fancy MMOGs as much anymore. Other things in my life have first priority, and I have to fit my gaming into whats left of my day, most of the times on short notice.

Real time combat is fine and dandy if you have one character, but a whole group of characters is hard to play in realtime and if you want to use all strategic options.

[stray]

Damn. You got me. Party based rpg's.

I haven't played one in awhile, forgot all about them.

[schild]

I really thought this thread would be over when Yegolev posted. What I mean to say is, he's right. That was pretty gay, WUA.

[stray]

To continue with my train of thought: This message board is a waste of my broadband capabilities.

It needs to be fattened up a bit. 400x400 sized avatars. Flashed based front page. Video chat. Hell, where's IRC? More game servers (that we may or may not use). Wtf is up with this turned based posting shit?

Also, F13 Radio.

[schild]

Hey, we have locally hosted flv stuff now. Baby steps. Later, twitch posting. Though I'm pretty sure some people already hacked the board so they could do that - and they obviously use aimbots and wallhax.

[Venkman]

This is probably way off any point mentioned here, but one thing I've always found strange is how traditional rpg combat (and all the things that go with it, like rolls and stats) is considered so vital even for computer role playing games.

I know you disagreed with me in your post prior to quote, but this is actually my point. Why does "having a narrative" need to mean you roll dice to achieve objectives delivered linearly? People already do that in FPS games. They're just called "matches".

Plus, look at how RPG combat has changed from the days of Ultima. "Turn-taking" is an understood basis of the system, but outside of boss encounters involving lots of people, it barely feels like it Action. WoW, CoH, GW, so on. Sure, those wouldn't be considered "good" RPGs in the metric that measures things like KOTOR and Oblivion, but that's where the big money's being made. This doesn't even go into the rise of interest in PvP, due mostly to GW and WoW.

And FPS's have come a long way since rocket launches ftw. Combat has slowed down in a lot of modes, allowing for more roles and tactics.

I know that FPS's and RPGs are different things for different people. And I know the history of how that happened. I just don't think that's going to be the case for much longer.

Real time combat is fine and dandy if you have one character, but a whole group of characters is hard to play in realtime and if you want to use all strategic options.

For mobs players eventually memorize anyway sure. For PvP though?

[Tebonas]

PvP in group based single player games? You gotta be quite shizo to pull THAT off.

[Yegolev]

I call everything I play online an MMO.  Even ordering pizza online is an MMO.  I know I'm often wrong, but I don't care.

You are very right, if you ask me.  I basically view the MOG as a microcosm of the real world.  If you could remotely punch people in the mouth in a MOG, they would be practically identical.

As for the RPG, I have decided any game in which I pretend to be someone/something else means I am taking on a role as I play.  Where's the distinction beween pretending to be the character and just controlling their actions?  Tough one.

[WindupAtheist]

I really thought this thread would be over when Yegolev posted. What I mean to say is, he's right. That was pretty gay, WUA.

And yet people are discussing it.  Woot.

[eldaec]

Congratulations, when's the coming out party?

[Oban]

Why is being gay a bad thing?

As for RPG's:

Diablo 2

Yes, because my character advanced as I played (skills, abilities, weapons, armour and so on...).  I had a reason to care about the character (egads, roleplaying?) and the story.

Ultima 4

Yes, because my character advanced as I played.

Final Fantasy 7

Hard to say on this one, I tend to think of RPG's as a game where I play one character throughout the story.  FF7 jumped around quite a bit and seemed more like a playable movie.  Perhaps this should be in a different grouping, like JRPG. 

Gauntlet

No, this was an arcade game.

Legend of Zelda: Wind Walker

Yes.

Morrowind

Yes.

[Signe]

Why is being gay a bad thing?

It's not.  At least I don't think it is.  I bet it's every bit as nice as not being gay, except for the bit when people get mean.  I wonder how it got linked with screwing stuff up?

I consider everything that I have to roll a character or play a different character to be an rpg.  Everything I play online is an MMO. 

[Ironwood]

Later, twitch posting.

I get that now.  But then, I'm on 15 cups of coffee a day.

[Riggswolfe]

Games that encourage roleplaying?  How does Baldur's Gate (or whatever) encourage "Role Playing" more than Quake or Warcraft II?  Games that have stories, or upgradeable main characters?   Every game ever made has had that to some degree.  Doom has a story, it has an upgradeable main character ("You got the BFG!" "DING!"). 

You obviously don't like the RPG genre and don't understand it. If you can't see how Baldur's Gate encourages you to identify with your character more than Quake or Warcraft II (which doesn't even have a 'main' character) then you need to stay out of this thread as your input is useless.

Doom has a story in the very barest form and getting the BFG isn't an upgrade or a meaningful change to the character.

[Signe]

He doesn't like rpgs and you don't llike people.  I am shocked at your meaniness.   

[Yegolev]

Why is being gay a bad thing?

Depends on what meaning you are using.  I was not calling WUA a homosexual, I was pointing out that this thread could have just as easily been started by Telemediocrity.  Except, of course, it's not really about the OP, but close enough.

[tazelbain]

EDIT:nevermind

[geldonyetich]

Labels of what is or is not an RPG, much like labels of what is or is not a homosexual, do nothing but obscure the quality of that being labeled. Very few things are sufficiently alike another thing that distinctions should be ignored.  Thus, a single label is not sufficient to describe why Ultima 4 should never be compared to Angband, despite them both being tile-based games.  No computer rendition of Dungeons and Dragons had anything to do with the flow of the pencil and paper game.  Concerning myself with how to categorize several very different games under the same label is choosing delusion over truth.



Perhaps a more boring answer than you were looking for.