Extra Credits: RPGs are more than just their surface mechanics

In all the debates between WRPG and JRPG, it often brings up the same arguments about stats, levelling, inventory, combat, exploration, and so on. But is there more to the two genres (and the general genre as a whole) than just these surface mechanics? One YouTube blogger, Extra Credits seems to think so. Especially in light of how what many associate as RPG elements can be found in so many games that aren't categorized as RPGs.

I found this provacative video segment that really delves into what differentiates the two genres. It's in 3 parts at about 6min and change each. So approx 19 min in total and worth every minute in viewing for how it explores the development of the genre both by region and general game design.

PART 1
PART 2
PART 3

Here I was expecting a long winded Adobe essay.siLVURcross

Sorry to disappoint :lol: :P

That's some pretty excellent stuff. Thanks Adobe.

It would be Adobe that posts this.

Mass Effect damage control in a thread that's not even about Mass Efferct. Impressive.

I liked the videos, thanks for the link. I feel like it's spot-on. Square-Enix needs to get knocked off their damn pedestal due to past success.

It would be Adobe that posts this.

Mass Effect damage control in a thread that's not even about Mass Efferct. Impressive.

DarkLink77

It would be Adobe that posts this.

Mass Effect damage control in a thread that's not even about Mass Efferct. Impressive.

DarkLink77

Do you dispute their theory on what defines RPGs?

Interesting... They make some good points, and I definitely agree that the genre definitions should be changed up. I mean, technically any game where you are controlling a predetermined character is an RPG because you're playing the role of another person. I remember going through a rental store several years ago with one of my friends and his dad and I mentioned I loved RPGs. His dad didn't know what it meant so my friend told him what it stood for, and he replied with something along the lines of "aren't all games role playing games?" I still can't really argue with that unless you're creating the character, and this was probably 10 years ago now that I had this conversation.

- Videos

|

|

|

|

|

|

- Average GS Member

|

|

- Derp

It would be Adobe that posts this.

Mass Effect damage control in a thread that's not even about Mass Efferct. Impressive.

DarkLink77

Interesting videos with some great points, it'll mean nothing on Systemwars. Lots of JRPG haters on here.

Big meh to any genre definitions that aren't purely mechanical.

He compares classifying games by mechanics to classifying films by cinematography, but that's not a valid comparison. Cinematography is just one of many equally important aspects of film-making, whereas mechanics are what make a game a game, so they are the only metric by which it makes sense to classify games.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

It would be Adobe that posts this.

Mass Effect damage control in a thread that's not even about Mass Efferct. Impressive.

AdobeArtist

Do you dispute their theory on what defines RPGs?

Big meh to any genre definitions that aren't purely mechanical.

He compares classifying games by mechanics to classifying films by cinematography, but that's not a valid comparison. Cinematography is just one of many equally important aspects of film-making, whereas mechanics are what make a game a game, so they are the only metric by which it makes sense to classify games.

Cherokee_Jack

A summary for those who lack wifi access? I don't get people these days... linking to a video, saying "discuss" and then making no concessions that encourage discussion.Zeviander

The second video explains why WRPGs and JRPGs are different (they grew independently from each other early) and that it's odd that these are the only genres that we define based on geographic origin. It argues that JRPGs are more about telling a story with the player as a puppet master and that WRPGs are more about expression and immersing oneself in a game world and making one's own story.

The third video explains why JRPGs had initial success but are now struggling. It mentions that JRPGs were initially one of the few games that introduced a narrative but now other games can do so, and those other genres, WRPGs in particular, have experimented over the years with different gameplay mechanics while JRPGs have stuck with the normal menu-based combat. They also bring up Square Enix owning more IPs other than FF and DQ, and that they should look into trying to make some of those just see if they can get some of their mojo back.

Your pretty obsessed with this subject.

Big meh to any genre definitions that aren't purely mechanical.

He compares classifying games by mechanics to classifying films by cinematography, but that's not a valid comparison. Cinematography is just one of many equally important aspects of film-making, whereas mechanics are what make a game a game, so they are the only metric by which it makes sense to classify games.

Cherokee_Jack

So does that mean GTA4 is a driving sim because you drive around the city? Portal is an FPS because you shoot (albiet an unconventional and non-lethal) weapon from a first person persepctive? COD is an RPG because you have a class system? Batman Arkham is a fighter with it's melee combat?

These and other examples illustrate how surface mechanics are only a small part of the equation, and the greater importance of examining what the true driving force of the gameplay experience is beneath the what we outwardly see in the game.

When I pick up say, Witcher 2 or DMC, both have real time sword combat, but I'm not expecting to get the same experience from each game. With DMC, I want to threash my way through relentless hordes of enemies, and story pretty much takes a back seat. With Witcher 2 (or even Dragon Age for that matter) I want to mold my character and interactively engage in the unfolding story. In those games combat is more the means to overcome the obstacles and challenges so the plot can progress.

The experiences of the game are more fundamentally defining of any genre, than are its surface mechanics. espcially given that mechanics can be chared across different genres.

Adobe, the answer is in the title thread: they are more than just their surface mechanics. They are not apart from their surface mechanics ;). I'm literally playing Mass Effect 3 as I type this. No, it's not a RPG. It's a damn good game though!FrozenLiquid

Now in this case Mass Effect has been erroneously compared to Gears of War. Can you honestly say you go into those games for the same reasons, and that they engage you in the exact same gameplay experience?

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]Adobe, the answer is in the title thread: they are more than just their surface mechanics. They are not apart from their surface mechanics ;). I'm literally playing Mass Effect 3 as I type this. No, it's not a RPG. It's a damn good game though!AdobeArtist

Now in this case Mass Effect has been erroneously compared to Gears of War. Can you honestly say you go into those games for the same reasons, and that they engage you in the exact same gameplay experience?

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]A summary for those who lack wifi access? I don't get people these days... linking to a video, saying "discuss" and then making no concessions that encourage discussion.nintendofreak_2

The second video explains why WRPGs and JRPGs are different (they grew independently from each other early) and that it's odd that these are the only genres that we define based on geographic origin. It argues that JRPGs are more about telling a story with the player as a puppet master and that WRPGs are more about expression and immersing oneself in a game world and making one's own story.

The third video explains why JRPGs had initial success but are now struggling. It mentions that JRPGs were initially one of the few games that introduced a narrative but now other games can do so, and those other genres, WRPGs in particular, have experimented over the years with different gameplay mechanics while JRPGs have stuck with the normal menu-based combat. They also bring up Square Enix owning more IPs other than FF and DQ, and that they should look into trying to make some of those just see if they can get some of their mojo back.

I didn't know how I was going to transcribe 19 min of video, but I spotlighted the main thrust of the thesis; that all genres (not just RPGs) are more accurately defined by their underlying drive for why people play them (the type of gameplay experience people expect to get into) than merely the surface mechanics. Sure as an outwardly visible feature, it's easy to see them as identifiers, but with how many can be shared across different genres, it's also misleading. The experience the game is trying to engage the playr in is far more important.

The current way we definte genres is based on outward mechanics, as opposed to literature where the genre is more about the theme or emotion (ie Romance or Horror vs First Person Shooter or Platformer). The first video points this out and suggests that this isn't really the way we should define genres in the gaming world. The second video explains why WRPGs and JRPGs are different (they grew independently from each other early) and that it's odd that these are the only genres that we define based on geographic origin. It argues that JRPGs are more about telling a story with the player as a puppet master and that WRPGs are more about expression and immersing oneself in a game world and making one's own story. The third video explains why JRPGs had initial success but are now struggling. It mentions that JRPGs were initially one of the few games that introduced a narrative but now other games can do so, and those other genres, WRPGs in particular, have experimented over the years with different gameplay mechanics while JRPGs have stuck with the normal menu-based combat. They also bring up Square Enix owning more IPs other than FF and DQ, and that they should look into trying to make some of those just see if they can get some of their mojo back.nintendofreak_2

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

Big meh to any genre definitions that aren't purely mechanical.

He compares classifying games by mechanics to classifying films by cinematography, but that's not a valid comparison. Cinematography is just one of many equally important aspects of film-making, whereas mechanics are what make a game a game, so they are the only metric by which it makes sense to classify games.

AdobeArtist

So does that mean GTA4 is a driving sim because you drive around the city? Portal is an FPS because you shoot (albiet an unconventional and non-lethal) weapon from a first person persepctive? COD is an RPG because you have a class system? Batman Arkham is a fighter with it's melee combat?

These and other examples illustrate how surface mechanics are only a small part of the equation, and the greater importance of examining what the true driving force of the gameplay experience is beneath the what we outwardly see in the game.

When I pick up say, Witcher 2 or DMC, both have real time sword combat, but I'm not expecting to get the same experience from each game. With DMC, I want to threash my way through relentless hordes of enemies, and story pretty much takes a back seat. With Witcher 2 (or even Dragon Age for that matter) I want to mold my character and interactively engage in the unfolding story. In those games combat is more the means to overcome the obstacles and challenges so the plot can progress.

The experiences of the game are more fundamentally defining of any genre, than are its surface mechanics. espcially given that mechanics can be chared across different genres.

The stuff in bold is the worst strawman argument I have ever seen.

This would have made a great OP! Thanks for the effort.

The first paragraph I agree with. The second I do not, as the Japanese-made Demon's/Dark Souls are thematically, and mechanically WRPG's, and confuse the current genre classifications. The third paragraph, I would need to watch the video for their more specific examples.

Personally, I think the term "role-playing" has no place in gaming, as it misrepresents the classical "JRPG" to be something that it isn't. Especially considering many games labeled "RPG" these days tend to fall within the realm of JRPG (like Mass Effect, where player choice is diminished significantly compared to Fallout or Vampire: TMB).

To me, "role-playing" is the creation of a persona unique to my imagination that when injected into a fictional world, has supreme affect over that world (i.e. every action has a consequence, both over and subtle). The only game that I have played that has come close to replicating this ideal was VTMB... but even it had a fixed narrative that had a definitive beginning, middle and end. "Role-playing" is the creation of the whole story, start to finish.

Which illustrates, I think, why I love Dark Souls so much. Mechanically, the game is an action game with statistical and visual customization... but it is open-ended, and allows me to craft whatever past, future and motivations my character has within my own imagination.Zeviander

They actually mention Demon's Souls and Dark Souls as games that contradict the genre definitions, seeing as they are Japanese-made games but are Western style RPGs. This, as you said, goes against the definitions, which is why they think the current way we define genres is incorrect.

I have to agree with the role playing thing. I see gaming as a whole as role playing, because you are generally acting as another character. It's not really a misnomer, but at the same time it defines a lot more than just the genre that we tend to think of it as. I think the kind of role playing you're talking about is more of role creating because you're actions directly affect certain outcomes and you aren't restricted to certain actions.

I'm not watching that (most video game opinion/rant related videos are stupid, a la Blackbond) but is this just you trying to justify Mass Effect as an RPG?

Because it's not.

itr's also inferior (in every way) to Fallout new Vegas, though that's neither here nor there.

Your pretty obsessed with this subject.

Yangire

He needs to prove to everyone that choosing an option of either"Dont make me fight you" or "Muahaha Die!" before being forced to fight a horde of enemies in a Bioware game is obviously more superior and innovative compared to....being forced to fight a horde of enemies in a final fantasy game.

I'm not watching that (most video game opinion/rant related videos are stupid, a la Blackbond) but is this just you trying to justify Mass Effect as an RPG?

Because it's not.

itr's also inferior (in every way) to Fallout new Vegas, though that's neither here nor there.

Slashless

[QUOTE="Slashless"]

I'm not watching that (most video game opinion/rant related videos are stupid, a la Blackbond) but is this just you trying to justify Mass Effect as an RPG?

Because it's not.

itr's also inferior (in every way) to Fallout new Vegas, though that's neither here nor there.

nintendofreak_2

If it takes the guy 3 videos to express one point it's probably filled with awful damage cotnrol/ not worth my time.

Especially considering I can easily debunk this whole "ME is an RPG" myth with one paragraph.

Mass Effect 3 literally gives you the option on how to play the game,

Do you want this game to play as a shooter?

Do you want this game to play out as a (terrible) RPG?

Do you want this game to play like a book?

:lol: Good job Bioware, true RPG skills right there.

Big meh to any genre definitions that aren't purely mechanical.

He compares classifying games by mechanics to classifying films by cinematography, but that's not a valid comparison. Cinematography is just one of many equally important aspects of film-making, whereas mechanics are what make a game a game, so they are the only metric by which it makes sense to classify games.

Cherokee_Jack

While I think gameplay is of upmost important, that doesn't mean that video games should only be judged on gameplay. Video games are multifaceted, and in todays day and age every part is paramount to a games success. While a game shouldn't be defined by graphics or audio, mechanics is sorely limiting. We should be looking at the design of the game - how the interconnected systems work together rather than any one definition. Because really, video games are much more than the sum of their parts, and far more complex in many ways than any other medium.

Thank you. :P I did my best keep it short enough but I think I covered their points pretty well.

They actually mention Demon's Souls and Dark Souls as games that contradict the genre definitions, seeing as they are Japanese-made games but are Western style RPGs. This, as you said, goes against the definitions, which is why they think the current way we define genres is incorrect.

I have to agree with the role playing thing. I see gaming as a whole as role playing, because you are generally acting as another character. It's not really a misnomer, but at the same time it defines a lot more than just the genre that we tend to think of it as. I think the kind of role playing you're talking about is more of role creating because you're actions directly affect certain outcomes and you aren't restricted to certain actions.

nintendofreak_2

I believe here that most people mistake controlling an avatar, or as the video makes reference to as being the "puppet master", with role playing. Just because you control the combat actions of Master Chief, Kratos, Lara Croft, mario, Zelda, Solid Snake, Marcus Feenix, or Ezio Auditore (to name a few) doesn't mean you're role playing them. They're all predetermined characters, not just in outward appearance but in attitude and interpretation of the events surrounding them. That' all been scripted by the writer, same as in any other genre (film, TV, books) that we passively observe the character's actions and reactions.

Role playing is fundmentally about interaction, and in what ways you deem to interpret responses in given scenarios. Being able to imbue the character with qualities you desire, so they become a reflection of you is what distinguishes role playing from merely controlling.

And you both are quite right about how Demon's Souls is not only an example of how mechanics alone fail to adequetely define a genre, but how regional labelling is a line becoming more and more blurry. While we need to distinguish between different RPG sub genres, it's better to approach it by design philosophy rather than region. Perhaps what we're really looking at is;

Scripted RPG, when you play a predetermined character, and where the story is largely linear, like in Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, or Persona

Dynamic RPG, when you craft and define your own character, and are offered more freedom of interaction, like in Dragon Age, KOTOR, Skyrim, and by that criteria we could categorize Demon's Souls.

But this is just a "rough sketch" suggestion, not something I'd consider finalized, so don't lynch me for it :P:P

Adobe, it might be easier just to drop the "RPG" label altogether, as in most cases, it implies something that doesn't exist in most games that carry the label. It would be much easier to refer to action-RPG's like Dark Souls as "stat-based action-adventure" or shooter-RPG's like Mass Effect as "choose-your-own-adventure TPS".Zeviander

I disagree. Just because this board is full of idiots doesn't mean valid industry genres should be disregarded. According the creators, the press, and probably most consumers, Mass Effect 3 is an RPG.

Adobe is right, or certainly closer to right than the people of system wars who refuse to keep up with the times.

According the creators, the press, and probably most consumers, Mass Effect 3 is an RPG.Kickinurass

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]According the creators, the press, and probably most consumers, Mass Effect 3 is an RPG.Zeviander

Adobe, it might be easier just to drop the "RPG" label altogether, as in most cases, it implies something that doesn't exist in most games that carry the label. It would be much easier to refer to action-RPG's like Dark Souls as "stat-based action-adventure" or shooter-RPG's like Mass Effect as "choose-your-own-adventure TPS".Zeviander

If you mean that the electronic medium can't 100% replicate role playing by table top standards, while it may be true, is no reason to ditch the RPG label. Look at it this way. Neither Forza or Gran Turismo are perfect driving experiences to real life. Yet both are widely accepted as "driving sims". They both strive to emulate real world driving experiences as best they can with the tech they're running on. Where as arcade racers take a vastly different approach to racing being more about adrenaline thrust. So having those labels is perfectly appropriate to distinguishing the different racing experiences each game offers.

In the same way, most RPGs are doing the best they can (within current technological limitations) to either emulate the table top experience, or offer a unique approach as only electronic medium can, in enabling the player to reinvent themselves as their alter ego within the game world. And as the tech continues to improve, so will games be able to better render that experience.

You guys still on this...? Also, how the hell is this SW material. If this was put up by anybody else, it'd be locked in minutes with the obligatory "blog it."AcidSoldner

This is a completely open discussion about the most contested genre in gaming. Isn't that what forums are designed for? And by all means, share your opinion on the subject :)

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]According the creators, the press, and probably most consumers, Mass Effect 3 is an RPG.Zeviander

So you also get a lot of people saying that ME2 and ME3 aren't RPGs. Are they right?

[QUOTE="nintendofreak_2"]

[QUOTE="Slashless"]

I'm not watching that (most video game opinion/rant related videos are stupid, a la Blackbond) but is this just you trying to justify Mass Effect as an RPG?

Because it's not.

itr's also inferior (in every way) to Fallout new Vegas, though that's neither here nor there.

Slashless

If it takes the guy 3 videos to express one point it's probably filled with awful damage cotnrol/ not worth my time.

Hey.

Guess what.

You are really stupid.

So you also get a lot of people saying that ME2 and ME3 aren't RPGs. Are they right?AdobeArtist

Hey.

Guess what.

You are really stupid.

789shadow

i don't have to take this from a kid.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]Adobe, the answer is in the title thread: they are more than just their surface mechanics. They are not apart from their surface mechanics ;). I'm literally playing Mass Effect 3 as I type this. No, it's not a RPG. It's a damn good game though!AdobeArtist

Now in this case Mass Effect has been erroneously compared to Gears of War. Can you honestly say you go into those games for the same reasons, and that they engage you in the exact same gameplay experience?

In the same way, most RPGs are doing the best they can (within current technological limitations) to either emulate the table top experience, or offer a unique approach as only electronic medium can, in enabling the player to reinvent themselves as their alter ego within the game world. And as the tech continues to improve, so will games be able to better render that experience.

AdobeArtist