What makes an RPG?

[ReptilePZ]

So although the topic is videogame RPGs, these come from PnP and I think there are solid lessons to be learned there. Since you exclude things like Zelda, which many consider an RPG, I'd say your definition remains mostly yours and, well, not definitive.

Top answer from the first link from the google search you've linked to:

""but RPG stands for "Role Playing Game". Technically, you are playing the role of Link, so therefore Zelda could be considered and RPG

By this definition, every game that has a playable character, including First Person Shooters, is an RPG. This would make the term meaningless.

To me, Zelda is an adventure game with very light RPG elements.."

And, just in general, Zelda games are not considered RPGs, not sure where you got that idea from. Probably from people that are not as correct as I am.

 

[arkblazer]

Only in the vaguest sense possible. You can lose as little as a fourth of a heart from damage in some of the Zelda games, so is the number four times as many hearts as you have? What about the games where half a heart is the most you can lose at a time? I'd argue that it's not well enough defined to count as an actual stat, and that even if it did, that games' statistics have to be deeper than a single stat to qualify as a stat-based game.

Yeah it depends on the enemy if its a a bat you lose a fourth if its a big enemy you lose a heart or more. So? its the same thing in most rpgs some weak enemy will give 7 points of damage while a big boss will give 532 of damage. And i disagree its not well defined, its even better defined than in other rpgs. A bat in zelda will always take a quarter of a heart. but a bat in say final fantasy will do 1 or 2 or 23 points of damage even though your stats remain the same.

That's exactly what I'm saying. They're unique items picked up as part of the story that have their quantities refilled, not unique items that you can pick up from enemies. It's the same reason ammo clips you pick up in shooters don't count as loot—you're not actually gaining anything new so much as replenishing the supply of something you already have.

But zelda items can be considered loot then, they are unique items that are part of the story (hell they are even more important than most RPG's because you need them to progress) i guess they are not refillable but i disagree that then they would be dismissed as loot. i mean in rpgs there is loot that its unique and are not nonrefillable . this are known as legendary loot like the ultimate sword in an rpg. so for example zelda's master sword is unique legendary loot.

We..WE DO?!

Man. Why does NO ONE tell me these things.

I know, rite?

@arkblazer

Also, 222 and Rep decided their definition applied - but it doesn't. There are lots of exceptions. Zelda, as you mention.

Don't let 223 bully you, especially when he's flagrantly incorrect.

I wont. i wont let those big meanies bully me
Who do they think they are? the gods of RPG's?

I ask him to use the banana whip. it feels like silk and cream cheese on my skin.

Mmmm, banana whip.... aaaaaaarrrrgh

Zelda's not an exception to our glorious system, Sard. You never level up in that game => no upgrades to your stats. And no, collecting a heart is not the same as levelling up. You level up by gaining XP (which doesn't even exist in Zelda), not by finding collectables. Generally speaking, you're not an RPG if you don't have an XP system. We should add that just to make it perfectly clear how those upgrades are acquired, 227.

Carry on.

I would disagree like sard said there are RPG 's that dont have XP. i think that is too specific.

i think a more general term like Character growth is the factor that i would choose. And in that regard Zelda and its hearts count as growth.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Growth through character progression is how I would specify it. Not through collectables, a la Zelda - that's not character progression, it's merely an armour enhancement.

 

[Vincentdante]

overarching mission/quest,
character progression from weak to strong,
the use of statistics,
and inventory/loot

So does this mean The Witcher 2 is no longer an RPG?

 

[227]

But zelda items can be considered loot then, they are unique items that are part of the story (hell they are even more important than most RPG's because you need them to progress) i guess they are not refillable but i disagree that then they would be dismissed as loot. i mean in rpgs there is loot that its unique and are not nonrefillable . this are known as legendary loot like the ultimate sword in an rpg. so for example zelda's master sword is unique legendary loot.

The term "loot" carries a certain implication of variety and non-importance that's more specific than just "acquired items." In a Witcher game, an enemy can drop a sword, money, ingredients, mutagens, and probably some other stuff I can't remember at the moment. In a Zelda game, though, enemies never drop refills for anything you don't already have, so you're never actually gaining anything new. Chests may give you new items, but they're always puzzle solutions that are required in order to proceed. Very un-loot-like. Do we need to have a thread to define "loot" next?

Growth through character progression is how I would specify it. Not through collectables, a la Zelda - that's not character progression, it's merely an armour enhancement.

Yep, this. Progressively stronger items don't count as a character progression from weak to strong since the items are the ones becoming stronger, not the actual character.

So does this mean The Witcher 2 is no longer an RPG?

Have you ever noticed the combat log? The different damage values of weapons? Your skills (like persuasion and axii) that increase the more you use them? There's an entire page filled with a mind-bending amount of stats, and smart usage of them can allow you to maximize your damage to the point where you literally break the game. For example, in the tower at the end when you're fighting the dragon's head that's poking through, doing enough damage at once will keep the cutscene from triggering.

 

[Vincentdante]

Have you ever noticed the combat log? The different damage values of weapons? Your skills (like persuasion and axii) that increase the more you use them? There's an entire page filled with a mind-bending amount of stats, and smart usage of them can allow you to maximize your damage to the point where you literally break the game. For example, in the tower at the end when you're fighting the dragon's head that's poking through, doing enough damage at once will keep the cutscene from triggering.

I admit it has been more than a year since my Graphics card broke and I've been saving my pennies for a Witcher 3 level PC but I remember a health bar and a lot of rolling

I shall concede that my memory on the actual system is fuzzy. But I'm certain there are no stats in the traditional sense of str, dex, int etc

 

[Sardukhar]

Do we need to have a thread to define "loot" next?

.

Nope! Your definition is just yours, about new items. Here's the actual one! from Merriam Webster.

"loot noun \ˈlüt\
: something that is stolen or taken by force

Full Definition of LOOT

1
: goods usually of considerable value taken in war : spoils
2
: something held to resemble goods of value seized in war: as
a : something appropriated illegally often by force or violence
b : illicit gains by public officials"


Am I not helpful?!

P.S. I don't remember Geralt's statistics being an important part of Witcher 2 either. Mostly skills and items. I'd say Witcher 2 is not an RPG by their measure.

 

[227]

But I'm certain there are no stats in the traditional sense of str, dex, int etc

The stats don't have to follow that (or any other) convention. Here's a picture from earlier in the thread of W2's stat screen (one of several):

Spoiler

Here's the actual one! from Merriam Webster. [...] P.S. I don't remember Geralt's statistics being an important part of Witcher 2 either. Mostly skills and items. I'd say Witcher 2 is not an RPG by their measure.

Am I supposed to be surprised that Merriam Webster's definition varies from the "gaming" meaning the term has earned over the years? And you're remember Witcher 2 wrong if you don't think stats were a big deal. You could ignore them on the lower difficulties, but they still played a huge role.

 

[Sardukhar]

Am I supposed to be surprised that Merriam Webster's definition varies from the "gaming" meaning the term has earned over the years? And you're remember Witcher 2 wrong if you don't think stats were a big deal. You could ignore them on the lower difficulties, but they still played a huge role.

Pff. I play on Dark, sir! And I ignored them! And I rocked.

 

[Vincentdante]

It all comes flooding back just like that. Now I wish my GPU wasn't broken so I could have a replay

 

[Sardukhar]

It all comes flooding back just like that. Now I wish my GPU wasn't broken so I could have a replay

I always want to play Witcher, at least a little. Like all my top ten games, ( of which I have more than ten, but some are ties?), it's a constant pleasant urge.

 

[227]

Pff. My fingerous dexterity reins supreme and undermines games' genre classifications! Because MAN. Bow before my might!

Fixed that for you. Anyway, I assume you ran past most enemies because you never paid attention to the pesky numbers on swords, meaning you were likely doing zero damage to late-game enemies. Why bother changing swords when they're all sharp? Sure, one has a bigger number, but we're men of legend who have no regard for or understanding of such trivial matters!

A question: if you circumvent a fairly large element of a game, does it mean that said element isn't present? I can't recall anyone ever saying that the stats had to be absolutely 100% unavoidable so much as present and significant. If you had to use the numbers, then mindless grinding would make jRPGs not-RPGs all of a sudden, wouldn't it?

 

[Harthwain]

RPG is Role-Playing Game (hence the abbreviation). Mechanic is there to support role-playing, but I wouldn't say it's its defining element as many people assume so. Ability to express one's personality, freedom of doing whatever one wants, choices and consequences, relationships between characters all are at core of RPG. Character progression, stats, inventory and loot are accompanying aspects of RPG, but ultimately are merely means for an end.

Top answer from the first link from the google search you've linked to:

""but RPG stands for "Role Playing Game". Technically, you are playing the role of Link, so therefore Zelda could be considered and RPG

By this definition, every game that has a playable character, including First Person Shooters, is an RPG. This would make the term meaningless.

To me, Zelda is an adventure game with very light RPG elements.."

And, just in general, Zelda games are not considered RPGs, not sure where you got that idea from. Probably from people that are not as correct as I am.

Can you role-play character in Zelda? It can't be just "a playable character". You need to be able to play a role. That's why you have choices, dialogues and freedom: to fulfill yourself within a role you've decided to undertake. jRPGs sound a lot like they're using RPG mechanic, but in the way like Diablo is doing it: not to role-play. Story is set, choices are set and the whole narration is already decided before you even start playing. All they have in common with RPG are mechanical elements, but that's not enough.

 

[arkblazer]

Growth through character progression is how I would specify it. Not through collectables, a la Zelda - that's not character progression, it's merely an armour enhancement.

LOL funny that you make the hearts sound like loot

But no, i disagree, even if its collected it is still increasing a parameter or a stat. Why? because it is a permanent increase that cant be lost or removed. if it where merely an armor enhancement it could be removed. When link obtains the first heart he gets forever that growth and will always have that 4th heart, no matter how many times he gets hit he will always recover that heart. it becomes part of his health. the player cant unequip, remove or lose that heart. its become a permanent growth of the character.

Also just because its collected doesn't mean anything. xp can be collected in some rpg's.

The term "loot" carries a certain implication of variety and non-importance that's more specific than just "acquired items." In a Witcher game, an enemy can drop a sword, money, ingredients, mutagens, and probably some other stuff I can't remember at the moment. In a Zelda game, though, enemies never drop refills for anything you don't already have, so you're never actually gaining anything new. Chests may give you new items, but they're always puzzle solutions that are required in order to proceed. Very un-loot-like. Do we need to have a thread to define "loot" next?

Oh, so now apparently enemies can drop loot? pardon if a misunderstood but weren't you saying the opposite in the previous post?

Anyway i still disagree. Just because its not generic it doesnt stop it from being loot. then the unique sword that geralt finds in W2 are not loot? i think to me i define loot alot more general and i would consider the things you find in Zelda as unique loot. Because: A) its something that you obtain and become part of of your inventory, you get it from treasure chests or obtain it in a dungeon. . Merely because it becomes important factor to beating a dungeon doesnt make it stop being loot.

And in any case i wouldn't give that much importance to loot on whether something is an RPG or not.. to me Character interaction. and there being towns or safe Hubs are a more important element than loot. For example in your opinion Is Castlevania symphony of the Night an RPG then? because if im not mistaken that game had both loot and Stats and level ups?

However i wouldn't, because that game had neither a Hub nor was there any character interaction except for event prompts.

 

[227]

The problem is that we're arguing different things. You're all arguing that an RPG should be this and that, whereas Rep and I slavishly worked for what felt like a billion pages—mostly comprised of certain people nitpicking and bringing up irrelevant PnP stuff—to identify several common elements found in the video games self-identifying as RPGs. The form things like loot, stats, and character progression take can be worked out by cross-referencing many of those games. It may not be what we all want the term to mean (I'd like C&C to be in there, personally), but it's the definition that fits the widest number of games that are considered members of the genre.

Oh, so now apparently enemies can drop loot? pardon if a misunderstood but weren't you saying the opposite in the previous post?

Which post? I definitely never meant to say anything like that, but I've made a bunch of spelling and grammar mistakes today so it's definitely within the realm of possibility.

 

[ReptilePZ]

RPG is Role-Playing Game (hence the abbreviation). Mechanic is there to support role-playing, but I wouldn't say it's its defining element as many people assume so. Ability to express one's personality, freedom of doing whatever one wants, choices and consequences, relationships between characters all are at core of RPG. Character progression, stats, inventory and loot are accompanying aspects of RPG, but ultimately are merely means for an end.


Can you role-play character in Zelda? It can't be just "a playable character". You need to be able to play a role. That's why you have choices, dialogues and freedom: to fulfill yourself within a role you've decided to undertake. jRPGs sound a lot like they're using RPG mechanic, but in the way like Diablo is doing it: not to role-play. Story is set, choices are set and the whole narration is already decided before you even start playing. All they have in common with RPG are mechanical elements, but that's not enough.

Point is, Diablo is still called an RPG, and so are jRPGs. So, clealry, the definition of a video game RPG and a PnP RPG are quite different. Need I remind you that the first RPGs were quite simple, little more than dungeon crawlers. It wasn't about making dialogue choices nd shaping up your character, it was about getting to the end of the dungeon.

LOL funny that you make the hearts sound like loot

But no, i disagree, even if its collected it is still increasing a parameter or a stat. Why? because it is a permanent increase that cant be lost or removed. if it where merely an armor enhancement it could be removed. When link obtains the first heart he gets forever that growth and will always have that 4th heart, no matter how many times he gets hit he will always recover that heart. it becomes part of his health. the player cant unequip, remove or lose that heart. its become a permanent growth of the character.

Also just because its collected doesn't mean anything. xp can be collected in some rpg's.

There are quite a few differences, actually. First off, there is no progression in the process of increasing your stat. One moment you have nothing, the folloing one, you've advanced a stat, there's no gradual process, which differs heavily from what is done in an RPG system, where you gradually earn your way to a level-up, when you're awarded a stat upgrade.

This brings us to the next difference - collecting hearts vs collecting XP. In RPGs, you're collecting something that, when you have enough of that thing, allows you to go through a process of icreasing your stat. In Zelda, you're directly collecting the reward, instead of a means to get to the reward.

Anyway, I am actually going to go ahead and give you people an example of an actual exception to our glorious rule: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. It's a game that has every right to be called an RPG, according to the One True Rule, but nobody calls it that. It has loot, it has stats, it has XP, a goal. It even has C&C, which is welcome but not necessary for a video game to be generally accepted as an RPG. But it also has everything that makes a game an action platformer - it's two complete genres in one game.

So, while I will admit that our glorious system does actually have exceptions, what is generally accepted as an RPG in video games may differ greatly from what an actual PnP RPG is. Actually, video games that are generally known to be part of the video game RPG genre emulate the act of interacting with the ruleset of a PnP RPG, not necessarily the full experience of playing one.

 

[arkblazer]

The problem is that we're arguing different things. You're all arguing that an RPG should be this and that, whereas Rep and I slavishly worked for what felt like a billion pages—mostly comprised of certain people nitpicking and bringing up irrelevant PnP stuff—to identify several common elements found in the video games self-identifying as RPGs. The form things like loot, stats, and character progression take can be worked out by cross-referencing many of those games. It may not be what we all want the term to mean (I'd like C&C to be in there, personally), but it's the definition that fits the widest number of games that are considered members of the genre.

No, my point isn't that an RPG needs to have this or that. my point is that the definition is far more subjective. And just because a game doesn't have all elements or if a certain element is not that prevalent it doesn't mean that the game isn't part of the genre.

There are quite a few differences, actually. First off, there is no progression in the process of increasing your stat. One moment you have nothing, the folloing one, you've advanced a stat, there's no gradual process, which differs heavily from what is done in an RPG system, where you gradually earn your way to a level-up, when you're awarded a stat upgrade.

The progression in the process could be going through the dungeon or collecting parts of the heart. there is a progression in the process is just not that apparent.

Anyway, I am actually going to go ahead and give you people an example of an actual exception to our glorious rule: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. It's a game that has every right to be called an RPG, according to the One True Rule, but nobody calls it that. It has loot, it has stats, it has XP, a goal. It even has C&C, which is welcome but not necessary for a video game to be generally accepted as an RPG. But it also has everything that makes a game an action platformer - it's two complete genres in one game.

So, while I will admit that our glorious system does actually have exceptions, what is generally accepted as an RPG in video games may differ greatly from what an actual PnP RPG is. Actually, video games that are generally known as RPGs emulate the act of interacting with the ruleset of a PnP RPG, not necessarily the full experience of playing one.

Since you where gentlemanly enough to concede on your rule i will concede you back a bit. Reading through the wikipwedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania:_Symphony_of_the_Night

C:SoT is indeed an RPG so your "Glorious Rule" is still intact.

 

[Harthwain]

Point is, Diablo is still called an RPG, and so are jRPGs. So, clealry, the definition of a video game RPG and a PnP RPG are quite different. Need I remind you that the first RPGs were quite simple, little more than dungeon crawlers. It wasn't about making dialogue choices nd shaping up your character, it was about getting to the end of the dungeon.

Diablo is not an RPG, even if it's called an RPG by people who know little about what RPG is. Native Americans were - and are still to this day - called Indians (or American Indians) because of one man's mistake who thought he has reached India when he in fact discovered what now is known as America. Even a widely accepted misnomer is still a misnomer. This approach - one that you seem to support - is only making ignorant people misapprehend what RPG is and as a result they spread this misapprehension further and further.

On your comment about first RPGs being quite simple and being little more than dungeon crawlers - an excerpt from "Play overview" regarding Dungeons & Dragons on wikipedia:

Dungeons & Dragons is a structured yet open-ended role-playing game. It is normally played indoors with the participants seated around a tabletop. Typically, each player controls only a single character, which represents an individual in a fictional setting. When working together as a group, these player characters (PCs) are often described as a 'party' of adventurers, with each member often having his or her own areas of specialty that contributes to the success of the whole. During the course of play, each player directs the actions of his or her character and its interactions with the other characters in the game. This activity is performed through the verbal impersonation of the characters by the players, while also employing a variety of social and other useful cognitive skills, such as logic, basic mathematics and imagination. A game often continues over a series of meetings to complete a single adventure, and longer into a series of related gaming adventures, called a 'campaign'.

Sure, you can play RPG game like it's hack'n'slash or dungeon crawler, but it doesn't mean you can't do it properly and role-play. Otherwise you might want to play hack'n'slash. Like Diablo. Which is the point I am making.

 

[ReptilePZ]

It's a good point that you're making but it has nothing to do with the point 329423784 and I are making. We acknowledge the fact that the video game RPG genre is a misnomer and that role-playing is not really present for a lot of games that are part of that genre. What we're saying is that, regardless, those games are grouped in the same genre for a reason, and we're trying to explain those reasons. We're not saying that those things are what you or anyone else should care about in a game that's part of that group, that genre, but it's still why they've been included there.

So, we're trying to answer the title of the thread, while others are saying what PnP RPG elements that are found in video games they find important. I think C&C is extremely important, but that doesn't suddenly, as the title says, make The Wolf Among Us part of the video game RPG genre, nor do I think it belongs there. Because it's stuff like this that makes people want to call certain video games 'proper RPGs', it's what is expected from that video game genre, it's (a very big part of) 'what makes an RPG' :

Basically, me and 8623427846287 (or at least I) are being snobs.

 

[Vincentdante]

You know I slept on the question and came to the conclusion that I think I agree with 227 and Reptile. Those four features are really defining for an RPG. Sure there is spill over to other games but then other games are usually labelled "with RPG features."

Doesn't make them bad games. I love me some Zelda and all that.