Please tell me I'm not the only one...

[KotOR_rules2004]

While playing World of Warcraft I got in a discussion with some guildies about what constitutes a RPG. I say games like FF and Xenosaga aren't RPGs, they are a great means to tell a story and explore a character, but you don't role play in any way and don't make the character your own.

 

The other side say that FF is an RPG because you "play a role". When I asked if this means that Halo and Sonic the Hedgehog are RPGs they said yes...and not in a jokingly way.

 

I've noticed that every gaming publication buts FF and the like in the RPG genre, is this because there has been no proper genre created? I think they should be classified as "CBGs" or Character Building Game....you discover who the character is but you also aren't making him/her your own.

 

I hope this post has come across with minimal bias. I know where I stand, but I thought this would be an interesting topic. I also feel that this forum is a more reliable place to post such a question. Other forums such as Gametrailers or Teamxbox would be too full of fanbois to get a real accurate conclusion.

[Tale]

Roleplaying is about engrossing yourself as another character. The Japanese seem to have a misconception about what that means or maybe just the ones among them that make console games do. It means you are taking on that personality of the character. If the character, as in Japanese made console RPGs, already has a fully functioning persona without you, then you are not doing that.

 

The term does have to have some qualifications within the electronic pre-programmed realm of computer and console games, however. It may not be entirely possible to give the player all the opportunities to take on a personality, to act it out. So, they have to at least make a noticeable effort to try to account for multiple possibilities. Once again, if the character already has a personality that he's acting out for you, then they're not even trying and it's not an RPG.

 

It's a position I've remarked on multiple times on this forum and others.

Edited June 14, 2007 by Tale

[Aram]

The RPG genre can hardly be defined simply by its name. Neither can the Adventure genre for that matter.

[mkreku]

Roleplaying is about engrossing yourself as another character. The Japanese seem to have a misconception about what that means or maybe just the ones among them that make console games do. It means you are taking on that personality of the character. If the character, as in Japanese made console RPGs, already has a fully functioning persona without you, then you are not doing that.

 

The term does have to have some qualifications within the electronic pre-programmed realm of computer and console games, however. It may not be entirely possible to give the player all the opportunities to take on a personality, to act it out. So, they have to at least make a noticeable effort to try to account for multiple possibilities. Once again, if the character already has a personality that he's acting out for you, then they're not even trying and it's not an RPG.

 

It's a position I've remarked on multiple times on this forum and others.

So Planscape: Torment isn't a RPG then.

[Tale]

Roleplaying is about engrossing yourself as another character. The Japanese seem to have a misconception about what that means or maybe just the ones among them that make console games do. It means you are taking on that personality of the character. If the character, as in Japanese made console RPGs, already has a fully functioning persona without you, then you are not doing that.

 

The term does have to have some qualifications within the electronic pre-programmed realm of computer and console games, however. It may not be entirely possible to give the player all the opportunities to take on a personality, to act it out. So, they have to at least make a noticeable effort to try to account for multiple possibilities. Once again, if the character already has a personality that he's acting out for you, then they're not even trying and it's not an RPG.

 

It's a position I've remarked on multiple times on this forum and others.

So Planscape: Torment isn't a RPG then.

Don't you ultimately get to define the personality of the character? You may not have gotten to create the character, but I never claimed creation was necessary.

 

He's not acting out the personality for you, you're getting to make the choices that define it.

Edited June 14, 2007 by Tale

[metadigital]

*sticks fingers in ears and runs and hides*

[Walsingham]

*sticks fingers in ears and runs and hides*

 

*dragged along by virtue of their being his fingers*

[Amentep]

I don't think there is an easy answer to this question, and I think that ultimately its going to come down to what one thinks personally (hence why its a constant area of debate).

 

To me though, I think that one has to accept the fact that all computer based role-playing games are not capable of mirroring the freedom of the pen & paper equivilent. To put it mildly, you're always on rails of some sort, whether it be Final Fantasy's stat based story telling, Wizardry's relatively personality-less adventure party, or something like Knights of the Old Republic, Baldur's Gate or Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines which allows you a lot of freedom to define who the character is but forces you to hit all the same main storypoints regardless of how free you may be to solve side-quests.

 

To me its mostly a matter of degree and I think that most people usually will weed out what moves a bit past their usual comfort zone of RPGs.

[Musopticon?]

Here we go again.

[LadyCrimson]

To me though, I think that one has to accept the fact that all computer based role-playing games are not capable of mirroring the freedom of the pen & paper equivilent.

Agreed.

Computer RPG's are limited by the format they use.

 

I don't think I'd call Sonic a RPG, however, except maybe on the most base, technical level - but that to me would be like saying all forms of alcohol are 'beer' because they all contain alcohol, or something.

 

Not everyone considers story or even character building (beyond item stats etc) to be neccesary to be called a cRPG, tho. One could argue endlessly about the definition of a rpg in terms of how it relates to computer gaming; it's all just playstyle/fun perferences.

[Cantousent]

It would be nice if the debate itself weren't framed in such a way as to attack existing games. Yeah, that was only partly aimed at you, Swedeboy.

 

What I'm saying is, we have to rely on the games we've seen to make the debate meaningful, but it's hard when the games that have had the most impact on us elicit such a powerful feeling. It's not just the PS:T debate, although that's a big one. Folks who like WoW will likely dismiss valid arguments that question its status as an RPG, while folks who hate it will do the opposite. Face it, with the players in every argument seeing so much at stake over the definition, having meaningful dialogue regarding RPGs is going to be difficult.

[Wistrik]

The measure I use is whether a game provides the feeling that *I* am in the game world, not some pre-defined personality controlled by me. I could immerse myself fully in games like Ultima IV, but by Ultima IX it had devolved to the point where I felt like I was playing someone else's character. BG1/2 have a fixed path but I get to be the kind of person I want to be along the way (within limits; CE mass murderers tend to be frowned upon by the engine and certain generic scripts).

 

I think the lines between genres are blurring, to the point where I'm tempted not to use the old definitions any more. Instead I'll just use the game title and leave it at that.

[metadigital]

I struggle to find any relevance to the category ... what does it matter if a game is called an RPG? It doesn't affect the producers or the developers, they will just make the games people want to play (ideally) and the public will play the games they like.

 

A rose by any other name ...

[taks]

realistically, just about any game in which you have a character constitutes "role-playing." in the narrowest sense, even pac-man is role-playing, though the role you play is extremely one-dimensional and not in any way modifiable (you're just a dude running from some strange beasts with an overwhelming desire to eat dots). certainly i'd never refer to pac-man as a crpg, so any of you purists out there, please don't get your panties in a bind.

 

the differences among different genres come down to a) is the role your own, or already forced upon you b) in either case, how much control do you have over that role and c) how much impact does your character have with the rest of the realm in which you are playing and finally, d) there are probably at least a few other important facets that i'm too lazy to write about. even most pen and paper games, the ultimate in a role-playing experience, place _some_ limits on your chosen role simply because game mechanics cannot allow for infinite everything (such as real life). pen and paper can probably be seen as the maximum flexibility in any definition of role-playing. computer games then represent differing degrees of each the above options.

 

the FF games seem to force option a, but the upcoming witcher game will as well. torment forces a as well, so do the BGs to some extent (your heritage, for sure, and your destiny as well).

 

taks

[LadyCrimson]

The measure I use is whether a game provides the feeling that *I* am in the game world, not some pre-defined personality controlled by me.

I find that an interesting definition, at least by how I'm reading it, because I feel that way about all games that have a 'character' I'm playing - assuming I like the game enough to keep playing it. My character always becomes "me." I'm not role-playing that I'm someone else, with a different mental mindset, I'm just sucked into the illusion that I'm in the world of the game - with cool super-fantasy powers, but never mind that - and thus it makes me care about what happens in it.

[KotOR_rules2004]

The biggest problem I have with Final Fantasy and the like is you are forever going to be Mr. Spikeyhair Bigsword and you need to quell the hearts darkness to reveal the inner light. Why can't you chose gender, appearance, mood? I personaly think it is because people want to be spoon fed. No one wants to read text blurbs anymore, or even the in-game novels that tell you about the lore of the world you are in.

 

I remeber in TES III I would come across books about magic, history, even fantasy books within the fantasy game I am playing and they were a blast to read and added so much to the world. People are scared of big, open worlds now. I quoted my friend as saying (and he is a 100% console only guy) "I like my RPGs to be more linear"...WTF?! Linear and RPG should never ever be used in sentence together unless the sentence is "RPGs are not linear".

 

TAKS you said that games like BG and PS:T force the backstory upon you. This is true as it would be impossible to create your own backstory in a video game unless you are playing an MMO of some kind. Keep in mind the video games, especialy RPGs have a story to tell and you are a big part of that story. Your backstory in important but you still get to chose your own destiny. In most cases there are several endings to a RPG. Generaly good and evil, sometimes a neutral, but you still chose how you wanted your character to play and end the story. This is where JPRGs are completely different. If I sat down and beat a FF I can guarantee that MY player character would be the exact same as YOUR player character. Give or take a few weapons and potions I would be the exact same. Nothing makes the character my own...

 

I hope this came across the right way...I just got off work (8 hr shift) so if I seem a bit upset, you can guess why.

[Spider]

Linear and RPG should never ever be used in sentence together unless the sentence is "RPGs are not linear".

 

95% of all RPGs (if we're talking single player here) are linear. So they go very well together.

[Hurlshort]

KotOR was linear. I loved it because of that. The story would have been weakened if you weren't forced down certain paths.

[Amentep]

This is where JPRGs are completely different. If I sat down and beat a FF I can guarantee that MY player character would be the exact same as YOUR player character. Give or take a few weapons and potions I would be the exact same. Nothing makes the character my own...

 

Several of the Final Fantasy games allow you to choose your class (and in the original one you created your own party). The recent FFs (X, X-2 and I believe XII) have a skill based system that allows you to choose the various class skills and build to your own preference. So odds are good the characters wouldn't be exactly the same. They would have still hit all the same high points though, cause the stories are linear though...

[Llyranor]

Does it matter? CRPGs ultimately offer pathetic roleplaying by their very nature, anyway.

[Laozi]

Everyone is forgetting that ultimately what makes a game an RPG is if it has a romance. It allows the player to emerse themselves in a world where, through roleplaying, they can attract a mate. Without this element the traditional peripheral reasons for roleplaying becomes meritless.

[jaguars4ever]

Everyone is forgetting that ultimately what makes a game an RPG is if it has a romance. It allows the player to emerse themselves in a world where, through roleplaying, they can attract a mate. Without this element the traditional peripheral reasons for roleplaying becomes meritless.

Indeed.

 

I would say role playing has taken place when the nipple makes its first appearance.

[Llyranor]

Hmm, hello? That was exactly what I was saying.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Everyone is forgetting that ultimately what makes a game an RPG is if it has a romance.

 

 

This is untrue, we all know that the defining aspect of a cRPG is top-down perspective.

[Walsingham]

Walsingham's easy to remember dictum: It's not a RPG unless there is a stuffed cat in it.