What makes an RPG?

[vtmb]

You are trying to hint at consistency and completeness there: P
ot rant ensues
CoD's are particularly bad at those. Health Regen would work in a sci fi or fantasy game or something, but it's not realistic stuff and it's visually weird too. Either players are supposed to feel tears of blood or scratches. So that's a diegetic lack of consistency.
For level design stuff it's far worse. CoD4 is meant to appeal to casuals so mission must be short and because of HR the map is divided in cover to cover runs and choke points of infinite spawning. Eventually one realizes the best way to proceed is running through. It'd be a stupid risk in every other game but HR won't make players suffer long term consequences, especially if they rush to cover as method to proceed as if the lack of medkits means nothing. Obviously cutscenes and weird scripts people can mess with will ensue.
Multiplayer wise it's full of stuff to negate proper skill. Killstreaks, tactical nukes, character progression, unlocks and pointless trends. No tool to master for a proper metagame, missing the final shots will allow enemies to get back with a loaded gun and full health. lmfao

 

[Decatonkeil]

This whole thing is why I chose a very cautious definition, one that encompasses pretty much everything that has been called an RPG and leaves out everything that has not. Maybe it's the comformist in me. Anyway, I always say there's two ways to define a thing: a prescriptive definition is "what you think something should be to be considered a thing" and a descriptive definition is "what things widely labelled in a certain way actually are, regardless of what anyone wants them to be or mean". I chose the second... although I didn't go as far as to say it's numbers.

I would say that even a JRPG in which you can't choose your main character (hell, sometimes you can't even choose your lineup!) or how he or she develops is an RPG from a MECHANICAL perspective (which to me, is what makes an RPG). Okay, so you're forced to play a warrior or a paladin type of character: one doesn't choose what he was born as. The thing is you play this character the way one plays this kind of character: he's strong, he's brave, he's not gifted with magical powers... along the way you find a priest, a monk and a wizard. They all kick ass in their respective fields. Maybe you "tell" the guys that are more brains than brawn to keep a distance (you sometimes have formations in these games: see Lufia or FFIV). But then, in a forced plot twist you either part ways with these guys and you have to again think as someone who is alone and only has his sword, shield, armor and strength. Eventually you are forced to join a young kid who is still a little green at magic. He has only you to protect him from the very fierce monsters of this region you're in. You can fight them nice enough, but he'd better just gain exp from vicarious learning.

In a mechanical sense, it's quite RPG/DnD 101. Maybe you don't get to choose paths because it's like having a shit DM. Maybe it's like when you want to play a piece of shit but everyone wants to play goody two shoes and PnP's are mostly cooperative. Maybe not, maybe the main characters' morals are so strict that other options don't even cross their minds XD. Unlike other kinds of games that are brought up, you can, if not compare yor main character to other player's main character, compare characters among themselves in a given time in your own game. You can see how X is strong and fast, how Y is intelligent... how a kid character gets homesick and needs to hear mommy's voice. In a game where each character equipped with a certain weapon will have the same performance as any other, where fat grandma can get to the same level of skills than super ripped guy through unlockables or through very standarized and flat progression for everyone... that is not RPG for me, although I may like it more than any RPG. We shouldn't be discussing this as a "calling it an RPG is praise, calling it not-RPG is an insult".

Skills there are solely devoted to performance in battle... sometimes you have artifacts or spells that can be used out of battle to solve puzzles and obstacles (in Golden Sun you can't build an ice pillar that will help you get to the other side until you have someone with that power in your party). This way, choice is mostly seen through combat. With a forced party, etc. it's usually packed a bit tighter with strategy: you have to learn the elemental weakness of this boss (I know there's that in WRPGs but they sometimes try to have every type of character be able to defeat any enemy).

It's also undeniable (although probably unrelated to our topic) that they did a lot to make RPGs accessible: the A button is to interact, that means you don't have to learn the shortcuts for Read, Talk, Inspect, Open... and the screen will be greatly alleviated without these action icons in the hud. Why would you ever try to talk to a chest, inspect a door to confirm it's a door (unless...), open a peasant (unless...) and so on.

So yeah, that's me defending JRPGs WITHOUT fanboying all over the place. I enjoyed a lot of them, they made me interested in the genre but even if I've lost some of the interest in them and see how some late games in certain franchises have gone very off rails I'll still reivindicate them and ask WRPG gamers to be welcoming to JRPG gamers.

 

[wisdom000]

If invisible numbers working behind the scenes counted, then wouldn't Call of Duty and all of those other games where you get more powerful weapons late in the game qualify as RPGs? After all, you can't see it, but those late-game weapons definitely do more damage because of invisible numbers.


I thought we were focused specifically on defining "RPG" in video game terms? I don't know anything about pen and paper games, but it makes sense that their more flexible and open-ended nature allows them to play by a different set of rules.

And "better or worse with a chance of success" sounds like a lot of interactive novels, yet those aren't automatically considered to be RPGs because "better" isn't quantified outside of the ones that mix in numerical RPG elements.

the numbers representing the bar that increases may be invisible, but the bar itself is not. Replace numericla value with wafer on a bar and its the exact same thing.

And if you don't know anything about pen and paper games, then you really have no point of reference for the discussion in the first place, since every video game rpg owes it's existence and basis on tabletop RPG's.

 

[227]

Okay, here's the thing. If you just take stats, then every strategy game ever is also an RPG (each unit has stats, their weapons are effective against certain type of armour, you can upgrade them etc.).

There are strategy RPGs (King Arthur: The Role-Playing Wargame, Fire Emblem, etcetera), but ordinary strategy games don't have characters who progress from being weak to strong, which is as important as the numbers. I mentioned it earlier, but was so wrapped up in defending the numbers that I apparently didn't mention that both are necessary.

the numbers representing the bar that increases may be invisible, but the bar itself is not. Replace numericla value with wafer on a bar and its the exact same thing.

It's not, though—a bar can provide you with information relative to itself ("hey, my health is half gone"), but the numbers provide you with information relative to other elements of the game ("hey, I have X amount of health and the enemy is X strong, so I should do this and that to get the most out of the situation"). Totally not the same thing.

And if you don't know anything about pen and paper games, then you really have no point of reference for the discussion in the first place, since every video game rpg owes it's existence and basis on tabletop RPG's.

And that point of reference would be invaluable if this were a discussion about what the term RPG should mean now that the technology in games is less limited than it used to be, but this is a thread about what RPGs are, and the term has shifted to mean something different. It's like calling tissue paper Kleenex; not all tissue paper is Kleenex brand, but the meaning of the word has shifted to the point where it's widely recognizable regardless of what the word technically means.

That means that older RPGs on limited hardware, many of which being fantasy games that I'm almost sure you haven't played, have a bearing on what the term means now, so you're the one without a point of reference.

 

[ReptilePZ]

There are strategy RPGs (King Arthur: The Role-Playing Wargame, Fire Emblem, etcetera), but ordinary strategy games don't have characters who progress from being weak to strong, which is as important as the numbers. I mentioned it earlier, but was so wrapped up in defending the numbers that I apparently didn't mention that both are necessary.

http://ee.heavengames.com/new/eeh/gameinfo/units/index.php

Empire Earth, a pure strategy game. Each unit has stats associated with them, and each individual stat may be upgraded by the player.

Age of Empires 2: http://aoe2.unitstatistics.com/unit-database

Starcraft 2: http://sc2.unitstatistics.com/hp-all
http://sc2.unitstatistics.com/dps-all

 

[227]

Each unit has stats associated with them, and each individual stat may be upgraded by the player.

Never played either of those, but do units carry over when you finish a map/level/whatever? Is it possible to start with a few units and use them all the way to the end? If not, I'd argue that there isn't enough of a progression from weak to strong to be considered an RPG..

 

[dragonbird]

http://ee.heavengames.com/new/eeh/gameinfo/units/index.php

Empire Earth, a pure strategy game. Each unit has stats associated with them, and each individual stat may be upgraded by the player.

Age of Empires 2: http://aoe2.unitstatistics.com/unit-database

So stats and levelling up are not the defining characteristic of an RPG? Good to have that cleared up

 

[ReptilePZ]

Never played either of those, but do units carry over when you finish a map/level/whatever? Is it possible to start with a few units and use them all the way to the end? If not, I'd argue that there isn't enough of a progression from weak to strong to be considered an RPG..

Hardly the same as your initial point of numbers = RPG. Anyway, the unit upgrades last for as long as the game lasts. A game ends when a player is victorious.

If you're good enough, it is possible to produce a unit and have it last until the end of the game.

 

[227]

If you're good enough, it is possible to produce a unit and have it last until the end of the game.

Heh, that actually sounds pretty cool.

Of course, it's also possible to finish Witcher 2 as an action game if you're good enough. At a certain point, I think the way the game is designed to be played factors into the equation. I haven't played many RTS games, admittedly, but aren't units basically cannon fodder? I was under the impression that upgrades like that were only to keep units alive slightly longer than they'd survive otherwise. Are keeping units and leveling them up over the course of the game the "standard" way of playing, or just something you could theoretically do?

 

[ReptilePZ]

Heh, that actually sounds pretty cool.

Of course, it's also possible to finish Witcher 2 as an action game if you're good enough. At a certain point, I think the way the game is designed to be played factors into the equation. I haven't played many RTS games, admittedly, but aren't units basically cannon fodder? I was under the impression that upgrades like that were only to keep units alive slightly longer than they'd survive otherwise. Are keeping units and leveling them up over the course of the game the "standard" way of playing, or just something you could theoretically do?

Well, different strategy games have different rules. There are some where the longer a specific unit stays alive, the stronger it becomes, so it's good to keep them alive (Rise of Nations). In others, how long a unit has been kept alive is irrelevant (Age of Empires). But yes, generally speaking units are expendable (unless you're paying a campaign where you have a unique hero unit, with special abilities, and you must keep them alive)

There are some strategy games (mostly 4X games), where you command many armies, with a leader assigned to each army. Those leaders can be levelled up (Knights of Honor), given weapons and armour (Age of Wonders 3 is a great recent example of this) etc. If a leader dies, they're dead for good.

 

[227]

I'd say that those where you keep some units around to allow them to level up and become stronger over the course of the game definitely have RPG elements, then, however downplayed. As for Age of Wonders 3, the website for the game calls it "a unique mix of Empire Building, Role Playing and Warfare."

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Basically a character-driven game where the gameplay is largely determined by stats rather then player skills

jRPGs have little if any choice and consequences to them.

 

[ReptilePZ]

I'd say that those where you keep some units around to allow them to level up and become stronger over the course of the game definitely have RPG elements, then, however downplayed. As for Age of Wonders 3, the website for the game calls it "a unique mix of Empire Building, Role Playing and Warfare."

Yes, and I agree with that assessment. We are talking about a game where you have a main character with skills and items, similar to HoMM. But it is most definitely a strategy game.

From the gog page:

genre: strategy / turn-based / fantasy

 

[227]

Are we agreeing right now? Other genres can definitely have RPG elements bleed into them; maybe not enough to warrant calling those games sRPGs because of how comparatively shallow those elements are compared to "pure" sRPGs, but the leveling up and progression from weak to strong (accompanied by increasing stats, I'm assuming) is definitely RPG-ish.

 

[Sardukhar]

Are we agreeing right now? Other genres can definitely have RPG elements bleed into them; maybe not enough to warrant calling those games sRPGs because of how comparatively shallow those elements are compared to "pure" sRPGs, but the leveling up and progression from weak to strong (accompanied by increasing stats, I'm assuming) is definitely RPG-ish.

Pretty much.

Lots of games have RPG elements - but they have to hit a critical mass for them to be Role Playing Games. You'll know they do when, as you play, you find yourself role-playing. Consistently and repeatedly throughout the game.

If you aren't, either it's not an RPG or it's such a poor one you aren't connecting with your character.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Are we agreeing right now? Other genres can definitely have RPG elements bleed into them; maybe not enough to warrant calling those games sRPGs because of how comparatively shallow those elements are compared to "pure" sRPGs, but the leveling up and progression from weak to strong (accompanied by increasing stats, I'm assuming) is definitely RPG-ish.

I don't think I've disagreed with you on some strategy games having RPG elements. All I've said is that I don't agree that numbers + upgrades = RPG. Numbers + Upgrades + Character Driven + Inventory = RPG

 

[227]

Numbers + Upgrades + Character Driven + Inventory = RPG

Yeah, I think I could get behind that definition. I didn't think much of the necessity of an inventory, but looking back, every RPG I can think of has had one. Not so sure about the character-driven part, though, because there are some older cRPGs where you make your own characters and they seem to have no personality whatsoever. Like those first-person ones with the arrows for movement. I could try to find some examples if you don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Yeah, I think I could get behind that definition. I didn't think much of the necessity of an inventory, but looking back, every RPG I can think of has had one. Not so sure about the character-driven part, though, because there are some older cRPGs where you make your own characters and they seem to have no personality whatsoever. Like those first-person ones with the arrows for movement. I could try to find some examples if you don't know what I'm talking about.

By character-driven I mean that you're limited to controlling only a small number of units, not so much about their personality. I'd even argue that maybe Quests should be included.

 

[227]

Oh, I guess I've been in too many arguments about stories and automatically assume character-driven relates to the characters' impact on the narrative.

How would you be defining "quests"? I only ask because I'm playing through the latest Fire Emblem, and those games are very much sRPGs, but they don't have quests so much as stages, and optional stages that could be considered sidequests are relatively new in the series.

 

[ReptilePZ]

You're still following a main quest, no? Mostly want to include this so stuff like MOBAs can't get in, since they aren't part of the genre.