Best definiton of the RPG genre - poll

Just found a review of the old classic Wasteland at the Home of the Underdogs. It expresses some ideas which I think are relevant to this thread. Here's an extract:

Another element that makes Wasteland such a great game is the character development system. Most RPGs have a player select a class for a party member - but what IS a class? Does it let YOU role-play? No, the class tells you what and how to role-play. Does it enhance the game? Perhaps, but once the class is defined there's no real development OF the character - A level 1 knight has the same desires, goals, and value systems as a level 18 knight. Wasteland uses a skill and attribute based system, periodically giving a character 'points' to use on attributes and skills, as well as having skills increase through use. But moreover, the character development doesn't stop when you use up the points - many places in Wasteland allow a character to separate from the rest of the party and engage in some solo activity - maybe hooking up with a prostitute, or venturing into a cat-and-mouse game within the mind of an android. Stuff like this builds the character individually, and thus, the party. By the end of the game, I look at my characters and not only see what they are (level 20 Corporals, demolitions dude, charismatic leader, tech expert...) but what they went through... their individual victories and tribulations. This makes for a very powerful gaming experience.

Just found a review of the old classic Wasteland at the Home of the Underdogs. It expresses some ideas which I think are relevant to this thread. Here's an extract:

Another element that makes Wasteland such a great game is the character development system. Most RPGs have a player select a class for a party member - but what IS a class? Does it let YOU role-play? No, the class tells you what and how to role-play. Does it enhance the game? Perhaps, but once the class is defined there's no real development OF the character - A level 1 knight has the same desires, goals, and value systems as a level 18 knight. Wasteland uses a skill and attribute based system, periodically giving a character 'points' to use on attributes and skills, as well as having skills increase through use. But moreover, the character development doesn't stop when you use up the points - many places in Wasteland allow a character to separate from the rest of the party and engage in some solo activity - maybe hooking up with a prostitute, or venturing into a cat-and-mouse game within the mind of an android. Stuff like this builds the character individually, and thus, the party. By the end of the game, I look at my characters and not only see what they are (level 20 Corporals, demolitions dude, charismatic leader, tech expert...) but what they went through... their individual victories and tribulations. This makes for a very powerful gaming experience.

Plomdidom

interesting. i guess it's no suprise, since it's fallout's spiritual predecessor. but i would say that a level 1 knight has a much different perspective of the world than a level 18 knight; a level 1 knight would probably be crouching in a corner, hoping no one notices him, while a level 18 knight would strut around confidently. but that kind of stuff is never implemented in a game, unfortunately (only in terms of what monster you can or can't fight). i always wanted npc characters to run away from me. like in bg2 - after i defeated the red dragon who was talking so much smack, i wanted others to know me as a dragonslayer, but no one treated me any differently. that's one thing that fallout and especially fallout 2 did so well. it made you think that you were a real person in a real world; people knew you as someone who made porno films or beat the heavyweight champion, for example. lol!

[QUOTE="artur79"]Never thought I would say it, but all this talk about Sims 2 makes me want to play the game. When I'm home from the holidays, I'm getting it and every interesting expansion/mod that is available. Hope there are some Mafia mods or something...fireandcloud

oh yeah? i was thinking about getting it when the whole game is sold together with the expansions, since i don't want to spent too much money on it. i got ripped off by the sims; i bought the original and some of the expansions separately, and like a month later they released the complete package. i vowed to stay away from sims 2 unless they include all the expansions in one package. are you going to get the sims stuff as well? gotta dress your sims nicely. :lol:

Or maybe I'll wait too. No need to throw money at EA, they have too much already. Buying Mass Effect made me cringe a little, I realized that I was supporting the company behind NFS Pro Street and the yearly rip off known as Fifa. Crysis is awesome though...

Okay, I'll stop getting off topic now. I think I ruined Plomdidoms thread with my Sims-post...

interesting. i guess it's no suprise, since it's fallout's spiritual predecessor. but i would say that a level 1 knight has a much different perspective of the world than a level 18 knight; a level 1 knight would probably be crouching in a corner, hoping no one notices him, while a level 18 knight would strut around confidently. but that kind of stuff is never implemented in a game, unfortunately (only in terms of what monster you can or can't fight). i always wanted npc characters to run away from me. like in bg2 - after i defeated the red dragon who was talking so much smack, i wanted others to know me as a dragonslayer, but no one treated me any differently. that's one thing that fallout and especially fallout 2 did so well. it made you think that you were a real person in a real world; people knew you as someone who made porno films or beat the heavyweight champion, for example. lol!

fireandcloud

That's why I hate being attacked by small-time bandits on the road when I'm a Hero of the Land, covered with shiny armor, with a sword the size of a telephone pole with flames blazing out (that's a theoretical example). Are they suicidal or what? And goblins are supposed to be cowardly little creatures...

I chose something different. The descriptions you gave made me feel like I had the choice of 1 a bioware RPG or 2 an MMO.

I personally prefer J-RPG's with linear story's and no dialogue choices. I'm not kidding. I know no one else wants this especially game reviewers. I want one ending. It's like reading a novel or a choose your own adventure. I know its shallow but its what I like.

I chose something different. The descriptions you gave made me feel like I had the choice of 1 a bioware RPG or 2 an MMO.

I personally prefer J-RPG's with linear story's and no dialogue choices. I'm not kidding. I know no one else wants this especially game reviewers. I want one ending. It's like reading a novel or a choose your own adventure. I know its shallow but its what I like.

visceron

Basically, these are the kind of games I had in mind:

Group 1: BG2, Fallout/F2, VtM Bloodlines, P: Torment, KotoR2. NWN, also, as a crap, true RPG. Well actually I'm not sure about that one, whether it's a crap RPG or not a RPG at all. Tricky one.

Group 2: Oblivion, WoW, Diablo, Final Fantasy.

I think JRPGs, with their emphasis on turn-based strategy, inventory and skills/powers management, and freedom to wander around exploring, would clearly fit in Group 2.

I don't think that linear = shallow. Or all literature is shallow. As you say, it's just about personal taste.

[QUOTE="visceron"]

I chose something different. The descriptions you gave made me feel like I had the choice of 1 a bioware RPG or 2 an MMO.

I personally prefer J-RPG's with linear story's and no dialogue choices. I'm not kidding. I know no one else wants this especially game reviewers. I want one ending. It's like reading a novel or a choose your own adventure. I know its shallow but its what I like.

Plomdidom

Basically, these are the kind of games I had in mind:

Group 1: BG2, Fallout/F2, VtM Bloodlines, P: Torment, KotoR2. NWN, also, as a crap, true RPG. Well actually I'm not sure about that one, whether it's a crap RPG or not a RPG at all. Tricky one.

Group 2: Oblivion, WoW, Diablo, Final Fantasy.

I think JRPGs, with their emphasis on turn-based strategy, inventory and skills/powers management, and freedom to wander around exploring, would clearly fit in Group 2.

I don't think that linear = shallow. Or all literature is shallow. As you say, it's just about personal taste.

Another way to express the idea that Group 2 does not define an RPG:

Neverwinter Nights had a toolset. People made new adventures for NWN using that toolset. On the NWN Vault, where all mods are kept, these are categorised according to their genre. Some are centred on puzzles, others combat, others role-playing and so on. Others are hybrids. Nevertheless, these adventures which clearly belong to different genres all share the same character management system (DnD gameplay), interface and way of interacting physically with the world.

I will have to go with group 2 then.
visceron

Be careful though. The poll isn't about what genre you like, but what characterises an RPG. Vote 2 if you think JPRGs are really RPGs.

I'd say option one sounds more like the adventure game genre than an RPG. You guide a character with pre-determined attitudes and abilities through an adventure but have little chance to shape and mold the character's abilities or personality. I go with option 2.bogaty

Group 1 is precisely about deciding throughout the course of the game what to do with your character, through your choices of speech and action. Group 2 has nothing to do with personality, it's more about the technical aspects, which are, for the most part, pre-determined. I humbly recommend that you read the original post again, just to make sure that your vote really reflects your opinion.

I agree with your definition of adventure games, but it's very different to what's implied by Group 1 as I defined it.

2nd, online not PvP for myself.

Aspects of 1 are welcome, but they are an extra, not the RPG itself. 1 would definitely apply to Adventure games, since with the lack of anything else, these aspects become increasingly important in an adventure game (adventure = puzzle challenges linked together with some story, at least for me).

[QUOTE="visceron"]I will have to go with group 2 then.
Plomdidom

Be careful though. The poll isn't about what genre you like, but what characterises an RPG. Vote 2 if you think JPRGs are really RPGs.

JRPG doesn't apply to choice 2. They are linear story, everything is in the story in a JRPG. Oblivion goes in number 2. Final Fantasy goes with story tralala.

I chose something different. The descriptions you gave made me feel like I had the choice of 1 a bioware RPG or 2 an MMO.

I personally prefer J-RPG's with linear story's and no dialogue choices. I'm not kidding. I know no one else wants this especially game reviewers. I want one ending. It's like reading a novel or a choose your own adventure. I know its shallow but its what I like.

visceron

If it was between 1 and 2, id say 1.

Ive played action rpgs, where there wasnt as much character building compared to games such as KOTOR, but had a very intresting storyline and "real" characters despite the fact it was ancient PS1 graphics. It left a good memory.

JRPG doesn't apply to choice 2. They are linear story, everything is in the story in a JRPG. Oblivion goes in number 2. Final Fantasy goes with story tralala.

Anofalye

I see what you mean. Then if you define JRPGs by a linear story, it doesn't fit in any of the two categories and your vote would have to be Option 4.

I do believe though that JRPGs have strong "Category 2" elements (combat strategy, inventory, character management, free-roaming).

hey, i never heard of afterfall. i just looked it up on the web, and it looks REALLY interesting. i gotta keep an eye out for it. i wonder if it'll get reviewed by major game reviewers. and when's it being released? i saw the trailer - looks interesting. it's so sad that i'm far more hopeful about a game by an unknown game developer than i am about fallout 3 by a proven developer like bethseda...fireandcloud

Have no idea when they plan on releasing it, but it can't be later than late 08. They've been working on it for a while now.

I'm actually a little excited about F3. I tend to judge games after they are released, not one year before it hits the streets. F3-boards are filled with negativity and elitist jerks, Ihad a few interesting discussions there (a lot of intelligent people there), but I could not take all the whining after a while... I see this as Beth's chance to redeem their story-telling/atmosphere-making abilities. Oblivion is too shallow and lacking too much in story departmentfor my tastes. They did not have to call it Fallout 3 though, I agree with the fanboys on that one. Maybe "Fallout: A new Beginning" or something. It sure won't be a true Fallout sequel.

all RPGs play a bit with all what you said ... no developper is gonna limit themself to a definition of RPG just because they are making such game

i am 100% for devs creating variety in the gameplay

all RPGs play a bit with all what you said ... no developper is gonna limit themself to a definition of RPG just because they are making such game

i am 100% for devs creating variety in the gameplay

waza000

The thing is, it seems to me that many developers nowadays (not just Bethesda) are very much content with having a few gameplay elements labelled "RPG certified", an inventory and character sheet, a few FedEx quests and a bunch of elves and goblins, and call it an RPG, a the expense of role-playing which is the essence of RPGs as a I see them. I posted that extract about Wasteland to show that it wasn't always that way. It doesn't have to be that restrictive, but as long as people say "that's the way it is, why bother questioning it", game developers will keep concentrating on fiddling with the latest DirectX, and forget about old-fashioned concerns with creative talent, artistic qualities and innovation.

Call me elitist, pessimistic and cynical, but I think if Bethesda had been able to produce interesting NPCs and dialogues or a good atmosphere for instance, we'd know it by now. So unless they hire someone who can actually write (which is a remote possibility), Fallout 3 will be nothing but a sci-fi Morrowind at best. It might be a decent enough game, but still an insult to the Fallout series. After the commercial success Oblivion enjoyed and all the awards it received, I'd be surprised if Bethesda was seeking redemption for it.

I do hope I'm proven wrong.

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]hey, i never heard of afterfall. i just looked it up on the web, and it looks REALLY interesting. i gotta keep an eye out for it. i wonder if it'll get reviewed by major game reviewers. and when's it being released? i saw the trailer - looks interesting. it's so sad that i'm far more hopeful about a game by an unknown game developer than i am about fallout 3 by a proven developer like bethseda...artur79

Have no idea when they plan on releasing it, but it can't be later than late 08. They've been working on it for a while now.

I'm actually a little excited about F3. I tend to judge games after they are released, not one year before it hits the streets. F3-boards are filled with negativity and elitist jerks, Ihad a few interesting discussions there (a lot of intelligent people there), but I could not take all the whining after a while... I see this as Beth's chance to redeem their story-telling/atmosphere-making abilities. Oblivion is too shallow and lacking too much in story departmentfor my tastes. They did not have to call it Fallout 3 though, I agree with the fanboys on that one. Maybe "Fallout: A new Beginning" or something. It sure won't be a true Fallout sequel.

hehe. i guess i'd be one of those fallout fanboys that are whining and being negative (except that i've never been to the f3 boards). i don't doubt that beth is able to make a good game. but i do doubt that beth can make a true sequel to fallout 2. though they claim to be big fallout fans, i'm not sure they're respectful enough of the series to keep what makes a fallout game a fallout game. :( but i'm half hopeful, half dreading; basically, i'm just nervous. :)

http://wowsucksalot.ytmnd.com/

I feel thats the best def. of a rpg to me :P (mmos at least, and some rpgs)

http://wowsucksalot.ytmnd.com/

I feel thats the best def. of a rpg to me :P (mmos at least, and some rpgs)

Kool_j

Interesting definition. Couldn't see the connection with Jeff Buckley however, though I like the song.

RPG means Role Playing Game as in you play a role in the story usually the main character, who is on a quest. Therefor all or most games are RPGs. So now we had to further define what an RPG is. So we have your character upgrades ect...

To me RPGs are fantasy or sci-fi fantasy in which you get character upgrades ect...

RPG means Role Playing Game as in you play a role in the story usually the main character, who is on a quest.

Otchron69

No. In gaming terms, both computer and Pen and Paper, the expression "Role-playing" has a specific meaning. Basically it implies a focus on character interaction and being presented with choices which affect the story and define the character throughout the game. Which means that the "character upgrade" element is not necessary (or sufficient) to set RPGs apart from games of other genres.

[QUOTE="Otchron69"]

RPG means Role Playing Game as in you play a role in the story usually the main character, who is on a quest.

Plomdidom

No. In gaming terms, both computer and Pen and Paper, the expression "Role-playing" has a specific meaning. Basically it implies a focus on character interaction and being presented with choices which affect the story and define the character throughout the game. Which means that the "character upgrade" element is not necessary (or sufficient) to set RPGs apart from games of other genres.

Exactly... I have to agree with that :)

[QUOTE="Plomdidom"][QUOTE="Otchron69"]

RPG means Role Playing Game as in you play a role in the story usually the main character, who is on a quest.

herezjarchus

No. In gaming terms, both computer and Pen and Paper, the expression "Role-playing" has a specific meaning. Basically it implies a focus on character interaction and being presented with choices which affect the story and define the character throughout the game. Which means that the "character upgrade" element is not necessary (or sufficient) to set RPGs apart from games of other genres.

Exactly... I have to agree with that :)

Okay! Thanks, I guess I got messed up in my thinking big time! ( I never played the pen-paper RPGs )

Interestingly enough, Wikipedia doesn't have a proper definition of electronic RPGs. While the definition for PnP RPGs is quite clear and, well, definite, the articles for computer and console RPGs (which are separate) just list some common features.

Wikipedia states the following on PnP RPGs:

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create or follow stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

But then on Computer RPGs:

Despite a spectrum of features and game styyles, there are some elements common to the CRPG genre. Perhaps the most salient is that of the avatar, with its quantized characteristics that evolve over the course of the game, and take the place of the gamer's own skill in determining game outcomes. Another common element in CRPGs is a well-developed fictional setting.

The first set of features relates more to storytelling and the second to be about mechanics etc, so I chose both.

A games like Fallout is a good example because it had a pretty free-form story and a unique character develpoment system. Which means it holds both set of features.

It's tricky develpoing such games as a completely freeform game cant really hold a consistent story but a linear and set game with set character progression can hold a better storyline but leaves the gamer more of a spectator instead of interacting. IMO games are about the interaction so I prefer a relatively freeform game but with some restrictions to push me along the storyline.

I would say a CRPG is a game where you create a character with skills, personality, age and background traits which are allowed to change and improve/unimprove through your avatar's actions.

The core of the game and the majority of missions/quests etc must be either not based around combat, or at least give options in most cases to avoid the combat by other means. The world created must be realistic in depth (for the type of world trying to be created), and free-form rather than linear.

The game should have much in the way of interaction in the world, both with NPC and creatures an inanimate objects. These interactions cannot be narrowily based but wise ranging.

If a game is based around combat (ie most quests are based around combat), does not offer ways to avoid most combat, uses real-time FPS/TPS combat for more than 50% of the game with no option to avoid it, includes combat in vehicles such as planes and tanks, etc, and does not allow for details of character and world interaction, it is not an RPG.

To this end, we don't really get RPG's any more. From Oblivion to Stalker to Jade Empire to Mass Effect we are now getting 'Action games with RPG elements', rather than true RPG's. With missions rather than quests, that can be completed only one way (ie get your tank through realtime Third Person combat to reach the other end. Period. Where the story is advance primaraly through real time combat in either the first or third person and where there are no or very few options to avoid combat and advance the story in ways beyond the voilent options.

Mass Effect, for example, expects you to always fight your way into an area or building where there is an enemy. There is no ability to sneak in, avoiding guards, etc. Or bribing them, or persuading them, or anything else. The game is wholely based around TPS combat to get to many locations. Sometimes this is on foot, sometime in a personnel carrier with cannon. This is not an RPG, but it is the trend for not only RPG's but all games.

World in Conflict, for example, although being a so-called RTS, is actually designed to be played fast and furious like an FPS. Few future RPG's are going to be true RPG's and will at best be Action RPG's or even Action Adventures masquerading as RPG's. For some reason publishers want to call their games RPG's, when you think of STALKER and Jade Empire, when they are patently not by historic standards.

The FPS/TPS genre is working it's way into all genres and eventually, no PC game will be released that don't have these features. If you want something different, you will need to do what many many PC gamers have been doing for the last 2-3 years... Go back to (or buy) your old PC games like Darklands or Jagged Alliance (retro gaming), or go to smaller publishers that still do 'real' RPG's like the Seige of Avalon Anthology (independent gaming). Mainstream PC gaming just isn't going to do real CRPG's any more, and that's why it will continue to decline, as it has for the past 5 plus years as it slowly drops more and more genres to replace them with more and more First Person and Third Person Shooters - albeit shooters with better back stories, better world creation and better character creation.

NO1 = if you decide to play a rouge, you'll go through the game differently from a mage, a figter and etc. Classes are differnt ways of living, and you roleplay those different ways. it's not just how you do combat, but also how you interact with all sorts of NPC and how you solve the quest. For me personally, the stricker and more distinctive class limitation the better. Therefore, BG series is the definitive CRPG (though Torment is a superior game).

if somehow you play a game that lets you configure the 'ell of your main character, but all those skills and statistics don't really matter in the end...that's merely whatever-game wearing RPG make-ups.

I think that it's a bit of both, but I'm leaning towards No.2. By your definition in No.1, a point/click game like Myst can fall under such definition. Also, a few classic RPG's didn't necessarily give you choices, or choice that made a difference. A few RPGs are more linear, RPGs like Mario RPG and Chrono Trigger comes to mind.

When people say RPG, I think of unique weapons, character skill upgrade, party memebers, and has the element of combat strategy- real time or turn based.