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

[metadigital]

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.

I remember my first nipple ... *reminisces*

[Azure79]

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.

I remember my first nipple ... *reminisces*

 

*Reminisces with Meta*

 

[Sand]

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.

I remember my first nipple ... *reminisces*

 

*Reminisces with Meta*

 

 

*Reminisces Meta's nipple*

 

[Joseph Bulock]

I think one of the worst things that every happen to gaming was the establishment of the holy title of "RPG video game." That is not to say that I haven't enjoyed many games that most label as RPGs. I hold Fallout 2 and Final Fantasy Tactics up as my favorite games still to this day. Both of these are called RPG by most folks, though the gameplay experiences of the two are almost entirely different. Some people would argue that one or the other is a better "RPG" than the other, but not without having to state a 10 page thesis of what an RPG is, and I have no desire to listen to another person tell me that class based leveling, the ability to pick one's race and gender, dialog choices etc. make a game an RPG. The term is great for pen and paper. The term fits horribly for interactive electronic media, and is probably one of the most overused terms in gaming reviews/discussion/promotional material.

[taks]

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.

none of which i disagree with. in fact, you aren't just a big part of that story, you _are that story_ in every respect. no matter what the game is, ultimately your character (or whatever) is the focus in one manner or another.

 

Your backstory in important but you still get to chose your own destiny.

not in the BG games, nor torment. your destiny in BG is to dethrone sarevok. that's the only way to win the game. in ToB you actually get to pick one of a few options in the end, which merely results in a slightly different text scrolling across the screen, but your destiny is to defeat all the bhaalspawn and melissan.

 

there's no real way to write a story in which the outcome, i.e., winning, isn't pre-determined, at least with more than just a few outcomes.

 

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.

which is immaterial to the point i made.

 

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...

the only difference here is that they, the story writers, have chosen a character without any real customization capabilities for you to role-play. if you don't want to play those kinds of games, i.e., role-play somebody else's character, than you don't buy the game (i don't, btw). above, as in the BGs, which is a direct result of the rules system, you can customize your dude. in the end, you're still trying to beat some bad guy or save the world from some evil (that they may give you and option to join said evil is largely immaterial to my point as well).

 

my problem with the J versions of said games is that i'd rather play my own dude, even if he is "chosen" or whatever. all the stuff in the middle, after heritage and prior to ultimate destiny, is what i enjoy. the J games don't have that much for me as a result.

 

taks

[taks]

i might add, btw, that i often don't finish games that i start. i'll get to the end battle and, knowing that all the stuff i enjoy is pretty much over, end it before the battle. winning is almost anti-climactic. the nice thing about pen and paper is that you can simply have an open-ended campaign in which your characters slowly wander around the land searching for damsels to rescue, or treasure to uncover, etc. i.e., there doesn't have to be a point other than adventuring for the sake of adventuring. that's very difficult to do in a computer game, crpg or otherwise.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

I think one of the worst things that every happen to gaming was the establishment of the holy title of "RPG video game." I hold Fallout 2 and Final Fantasy Tactics up as my favorite games still to this day. Both of these are called RPG by most folks, though the gameplay experiences of the two are almost entirely different. Some people would argue that one or the other is a better "RPG" than the other, but not without having to state a 10 page thesis of what an RPG is, and I have no desire to listen to another person tell me that class based leveling, the ability to pick one's race and gender, dialog choices etc. make a game an RPG. The term is great for pen and paper.

 

I would agree that there are a lot of games that are essentially a tactical combat engine with a storyline stitching together the battles, like FOT. FOT caught flak rather unfairly due to this fact. Certainly for myself I like an RPG to include deeper girly issues like feelings, guilt, redemption, and jokes about Monty Python.

 

I suppose that strictly speaking you are playing a role by taking on any avatar. However I think that for true immersion your avatar needs to be dynamic, reflecting your actions and choices. I think it is this freedom to form the nature of your character, their friends, and general style which more than compensates in my mind for any restrictions on plot. This s why for me Oblivion is no more interesting than Far Cry as a roleplaying game.

[Cantousent]

I think one of the worst things that every happen to gaming was the establishment of the holy title of "RPG video game." That is not to say that I haven't enjoyed many games that most label as RPGs. I hold Fallout 2 and Final Fantasy Tactics up as my favorite games still to this day. Both of these are called RPG by most folks, though the gameplay experiences of the two are almost entirely different. Some people would argue that one or the other is a better "RPG" than the other, but not without having to state a 10 page thesis of what an RPG is, and I have no desire to listen to another person tell me that class based leveling, the ability to pick one's race and gender, dialog choices etc. make a game an RPG. The term is great for pen and paper. The term fits horribly for interactive electronic media, and is probably one of the most overused terms in gaming reviews/discussion/promotional material.

 

This is one of the most sensible comments I've ever heard. That's really the problem. The category exists as little more than an excuse to exclude game one group or another doesn't like.

[Spider]

However, just because the classification is overused it doesn't mean that classification by itself is a bad thing. Genre classification is a tool that is useful to the consumer. If I say I'm a fan of First-person shooters, people tend to know what I mean (maybe not my mom, but people with a general interest in computer gaming anyway). So I'll know that a game classified as a shooter has a good chance to have elements in it I enjoy. This is not, of course, to say that every shooter plays the same. They don't. So the problem isn't that RPG is a bad classification for computer games, the problem is that it is too broad.

 

Much like describing a a game like an action game, using RPG really tells us very little of the actual gameplay. In the case of the action game, we know that action will be a huge part of it, but action is part of any shooter, any platformer and arguably even of most RTS (maybe not, but you get the point). Same with RPG. The genre tells us very little of the content of the game, because it's much too broad. But if the screwdriver is too big, find a smaller one. And this is where sub-categories come in. Just realize that RPG is a broad spectrum genre (like action game) and use terms like jRPG or action RPG to describe those game specifically.

 

That helps, but there needs to be more sub genres. Specifically I think there needs to be a differentiation between the type of RPGs Obsidian and Bioware make compared to games like Oblivion, Gothic and Two Worlds (the latter by the way is a cheap knock off of Gothic, with some really questionable design and horrible writing. Pretty graphics though and a better engine than Gothic 3).

[Cantousent]

Oh, I agree completely, Spider. Categories make sifting through titles faster. That's the whole purpose of creating categories in the first place. The problem arises when various groups use category classifications as the basis for attacking titles they don't like and thus wish to have them removed.

 

Who determines what fits in any category? If I have a transgender operation, will I be classified as a man or a woman?

 

I'm sure no-one will take advantage of that example to poke fun at me.

[metadigital]

It depends on the context ... from a DNA perspective, you retain the original chromosome mix; from a social point of view, you would be the new gender.

[Tale]

Who determines what fits in any category? If I have a transgender operation, will I be classified as a man or a woman?

 

There are a few different perspectives. Genetically you are a man. Medically you can be a post-op transsexual female. Socially, they can follow one of the other two models or consider you a female as an alternative. Personally, you would probably consider yourself female as well. But again, the models each often have standards such as the genetic and medical.

 

I'm not sure I grasp your claim that people differentiate to insult a game they dislike. Does calling Diablo an Action RPG somehow demean it? Does calling Final Fantasy a JRPG demean that? How are these insults?

 

We can either say "well, they all call themselves RPGs or ___RPGs and that's just swell, they're all RPGs" or we can develop a standard of some sort to better facilitate communication.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Tale

[Atom523]

Well, personally for me, an RPG is a game where you play a specific role (either created by you or someone else) and during the adventure there is a goodly amount of character development. You don't simply have a person who you follow and learn nothing about, you need to be able to explore his or her personality and emotions. The character has to become more complex as you play as them and you must develop feelings for that character.

Using this definition i can accept games like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Xenogears, Fallout, Vampire the Masquerade, Knights of the Old Republic, and many other games as an RPG. I don't need to control the destiny of the person i play as. I don't know how to play as the Capitan of the royal air force for a kingdom, i am excited about following the adventures of this man though the ups and downs of his adventure. (Final Fantasy 4) At the same time seeing the development of a character who i shaped myself and who's actions i control are also very exciting. I love my P&P characters because i am basically putting myself into a different personality. They have their own way of doing things but there is always a part of me in there.

Both of these in my mind deserve to be role playing games. In both ways i am playing the role of someone who i am not and who has attributes that i admire.

[Tale]

I think it's important to take origin of the term into account. What you are doing, Atom, seems to me just taking every game you like that calls itself an RPG and building a definition around that. Your definition of role and roleplay is manufactured after you have determined what you want to fit into it. I disagree with that because these terms are even older than computer games.

 

Role is taken from theatre, where it refers to the part played by an actor or actress. This converts over quite directly to roleplay, since role is by definition played. People in traditional PnP RPGs are acting a theatrical part (albeit with a limited audience). Games like Xenogears and Final Fantasy I cannot accept into it because there is no character in those games that I would consider myself acting as. The characters do a fine job of acting themselves out, saying their own words, sometimes in their own voices. While actors in theatre often have specific words they are to say, when they say them they contribute to them, as well as the character itself, which is what distinguishes acting from reading aloud.

 

And that's where I build my criteria. RPG comes from the ability to interact. Inter-act, literally, to act together. In multiplayer computer RPGs, this is easy because of multiple actors to interact with with much improv opportunity. In single player RPGs, it is harder because you are the sole actor and improv is limited. So, I have to use a slightly different metric. The developers have to make at least a visible attempt to allow me to be an actor, to allow me to contribute to the character in a more meaningful way than choosing stats or class.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Tale

[Atom523]

I think it's important to take origin of the term into account. What you are doing, Atom, seems to me just taking every game you like that calls itself an RPG and building a definition around that. Your definition of role and roleplay is manufactured after you have determined what you want to fit into it. I disagree with that because these terms are even older than computer games.

 

Role is taken from theatre, where it refers to the part played by an actor or actress. This converts over quite directly to roleplay, since role is by definition played. People in traditional PnP RPGs are acting a theatrical part (albeit with a limited audience). Games like Xenogears and Final Fantasy I cannot accept into it because there is no character in those games that I would consider myself acting as. The characters do a fine job of acting themselves out, saying their own words, sometimes in their own voices. While actors in theatre often have specific words they are to say, when they say them they contribute to them, as well as the character itself, which is what distinguishes acting from reading aloud.

 

And that's where I build my criteria. RPG comes from the ability to interact. Inter-act, literally, to act with others. In multiplayer computer RPGs, this is easy because of multiple actors to interact with. In single player RPGs, it is harder because you are the sole actor. So, I have to use a slightly different metric. The developers have to make at least a visible attempt to allow me to be an actor, to allow me to contribute to the character in a more meaningful way than choosing stats or class.

 

There is a slight problem with what you said. First of all, i know exactly where the term role comes from. I am a huge fan of Shakespeare and theater so i know where these terms come from. However what you are failing to see is that those characters are set. The actors who played those parts had no creative license, they read the lines the way the director told them to do it. Sure there would be a small amount of creativity but when they preformed those roles they did the same performance again and again. The actors don't decide how their characters should react to a specific event, they have their script and they have to follow it or the director will find some one who will. Therefore these roles have more in common with the games like Final Fantasy where there is a set role for the actor to play.

 

The ability to make choices doesn't make an RPG. Now it might be what you want in a game but that doesn't mean that it is needed in all RPGs. You are simply the actor you play the roles that you have before you. Some plays allow more freedom then others but that doesn't mean that the plays with more freedom for the actor are truer plays then the ones where the actor must follow his strict role. In both you are playing a role and both are plays. Richard the Third played by Laurence Olivier is no more Richard the Third played by Ian Mckellen. They were quite different as Olivier played a Richard who was far closer to the play then Ian Mkellen, but neither is a more true telling. It is the same with RPGs. Even if you play a defined role you are still acting that role except you are simply following the script while in a game like Fallout you have more freedom to choose.

 

Also you will notice that i said that i have to feel for the characters who i play as to truly enjoy the game. When the character is me yes there is a level of feeling but when i am playing a specific role where i don't make decisions i need to feel something for the character that i am playing as or else i just can't enjoy it. Characters like Cecil in FF4 evoke emotions within me. I can feel for his plight and want him to succeed. I want to see what he will do next and the choices he will make. It is like reading a book, i have no control over what the page says but that doesn't make me attach myself to the character any less. The character i play as doesn't have to be me in another mans shoes. I can feel an attachment to a predefined character just as much as i can to a character who i shape. If you can't get attached to a character that you don't develop yourself i am sorry to hear that but it doesn't mean that it is less of a role playing experience.

[Tale]

The actors who played those parts had no creative license, they read the lines the way the director told them to do it. Sure there would be a small amount of creativity but when they preformed those roles they did the same performance again and again. The actors don't decide how their characters should react to a specific event, they have their script and they have to follow it or the director will find some one who will. Therefore these roles have more in common with the games like Final Fantasy where there is a set role for the actor to play.

 

The ability to make choices doesn't make an RPG.

Quote me where I said it did.

Richard the Third played by Laurence Olivier is no more Richard the Third played by Ian Mckellen. They were quite different as Olivier played a Richard who was far closer to the play then Ian Mkellen, but neither is a more true telling.

And you see the difference!

 

Never once did I say choice. I said contribution. The ability to differentiate my character from another's character on a meaningful level. Because actors are not robots and they are not programmed to perform exactly in a specific manner, even if they have a script they have to be close to, their performances still differ.

 

My Cloud Strife, however, is no different from your Cloud Strife. Because of that, I am not his actor. The acting, which defines it as a role, comes from having a contribution. This is easier done through choice, but to speak of it literally it is not exclusive to choice. No two actors, even under the same director, should be identical.

 

Characters like Cecil in FF4 evoke emotions within me. I can feel for his plight and want him to succeed. I want to see what he will do next and the choices he will make. It is like reading a book, i have no control over what the page says but that doesn't make me attach myself to the character any less. The character i play as doesn't have to be me in another mans shoes. I can feel an attachment to a predefined character just as much as i can to a character who i shape. If you can't get attached to a character that you don't develop yourself i am sorry to hear that but it doesn't mean that it is less of a role playing experience.

It is practically by definition. Reading a book is in no way roleplaying.

 

Final Fantasy and Xenogears aren't even simply a director being very strict about how it should be acted. They are, quite literally, the director jumping up on the stage and acting it out in your stead.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Tale

[Spider]

My Cloud Strife, however, is no different from your Cloud Strife.

 

Can't you level him up in different ways, thus having access to different abilities? I know this is not your point, but it still creates a difference due to player input. Just not in the social part.

 

Anyway, your argument is all fine and while I agree that those are things I like to see in role playing games, it's not exactly something that is required. If we're going to look at the origin of the terminology, we should look at where the term RPG comes from. And it has very little to do with acting and everything to do with monster bashing. In a way, Diablo is much more true to the origins of roleplaying than is Torment.

 

It started with miniature wargames just taken down to a smaller scale. Instead of armies there were only a handful of characters, but it was still all about fighting monsters. Hell, many players still play D&D like this.

 

Just as roleplaying in real life incorporates myriads of playing styles, so does it in computer gaming. Whether we like it or not, Diablo and Final Fantasy are both classified as roleplaying games. So it's better to create a new name for the subgenre that contains the BIS/Bioware style of roleplaying.

[Tale]

Diablo is officially classified as an Action RPG.

 

The origin of it wasn't just people getting together to bash monsters, the origin of it was people getting together to act out fantasy characters. This included bashing monsters in so much as that is a major concept of fantasy. To say "RPG is bashing monsters" is to essentially say "RPG is fantasy" which is a confusion of RPG with a commonly used style of setting. This is what seperated the RPGs from the miniature wargames. This is STILL (part of) what seperates modern ones like Warhammer from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

 

RPGs have been played in "adult" settings for ages with not a monster bashed. Well, I shouldn't say "not a monster bashed," some people might get kinky like that. Cops and robbers is roleplaying by kids. These aren't typically a codified "game," however.

 

 

You say classification is a good thing. To simply say that people who arbitrarily classify a game an RPG because people on different continents have a culture gap is not being a fan of classification. It is not classification without specific, discriminatory, criteria. Bashing monsters is not specific discriminatory criteria. Nearly every game features either the bashing of humanoids or the bashing of monstrous creatures. Which means you only have two genres according to your criteria. In Atom's definition, playing a role (using the broad sense of playing a character at all) isn't discriminatory in the least. And the depth of the character and the potential to learn about them is more about the quality of the story than the genre of the game. It's discriminatory, if potentially subjective, but I feel genre classifications should at least significant mechanical discrimination. Though, Atom's criteria does automatically rule out Diablo I & II and Elder Scrolls III & IV.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Tale

[Hurlshort]

Wow, you guys take this so seriously.

 

Is Puzzle Quest a Puzzle game or an RPG? It makes my head hurt just thinking about how to describe it.

[Spider]

Diablo is officially classified as an Action RPG.

 

The origin of it wasn't just people getting together to bash monsters, the origin of it was people getting together to act out fantasy characters. This included bashing monsters in so much as that is a major concept of fantasy. To say "RPG is bashing monsters" is to essentially say "RPG is fantasy" which is a confusion of RPG with a commonly used style of setting. This is what seperated the RPGs from the miniature wargames. This is STILL (part of) what seperates modern ones like Warhammer from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

 

RPGs have been played in "adult" settings for ages with not a monster bashed. Well, I shouldn't say "not a monster bashed," some people might get kinky like that. Cops and robbers is roleplaying by kids. These aren't typically a codified "game," however.

 

 

You say classification is a good thing. To simply say that people who arbitrarily classify a game an RPG because people on different continents have a culture gap is not being a fan of classification. It is not classification without specific, discriminatory, criteria. Bashing monsters is not specific discriminatory criteria. Nearly every game features either the bashing of humanoids or the bashing of monstrous creatures. Which means you only have two genres according to your criteria. In Atom's definition, playing a role (using the broad sense of playing a character at all) isn't discriminatory in the least. And the depth of the character and the potential to learn about them is more about the quality of the story than the genre of the game. It's discriminatory, if potentially subjective, but I feel genre classifications should at least significant mechanical discrimination. Though, Atom's criteria does automatically rule out Diablo I & II and Elder Scrolls III & IV.

 

First, I am not saying RPGS are about bashing monsters. I said that's what it started out as. This in response to you talking about the origin of the world role. And I disagree that RPGs started out as a way to "get people together and act out fantasy characters". The acting out part came later. First there was Chainmail, a fairly standard miniature wargame. Then fantasy-rules were added to the existing setting (which was strictly medieval). Then the players of that game (Gygax et al) discovered that it was just as fun to fight battles with only the generals, the characters. So they started doing that. To make these games more entertaining they started to come up with reasons why the generals were fighting monsters and thus the dungeons. At this point there was still no more roleplaying involved than there is in Diablo. But this is when D&D was released to the masses. Acting came later.

 

This is not to say that p&p roleplaying hasn't evolved, I am well aware that it has. I'm currently playing an exalted campaign where up until a few events yesterday, neither me or the other player could fight worth a damn. Or at all in my case. And while there has been violence around us, we haven't participated ourselves (only felt helpless). So I freely admit that there are many ways to enjoy a roleplaying game, but I never claimed otherwise. I did say that there are still people who play RPGs solely for the monsterbashing though.

 

Now with that out of the way, in regards to RPGs I never claimed that monster bashing should be used as the definition of RPGs. I was merely pointing out where I disagree with where you consider the term roleplaying to originate from, at least in this context. I have argued that the term RPG (in regards to computer games) is very broad. As it is currently being used it includes games like Diablo, Oblivion and Fallout. Games that are very different in how they play. What I don't want to do is the create sub-genres for some of the different styles and then have the rest make up the broader definition. I think the term RPG should include all styles and then to make clearer definitions more sub-genres should be coined. We already have the terms action rpg and jrpg, and I think there should be similar sub-genres for the Bethesda and Gothic style as well as the BIS/Bioware style. Every other genre does this, so why shouldn't RPGs?

[Tale]

First, I am not saying RPGS are about bashing monsters. I said that's what it started out as. This in response to you talking about the origin of the world role. And I disagree that RPGs started out as a way to "get people together and act out fantasy characters". The acting out part came later. First there was Chainmail, a fairly standard miniature wargame. Then fantasy-rules were added to the existing setting (which was strictly medieval). Then the players of that game (Gygax et al) discovered that it was just as fun to fight battles with only the generals, the characters. So they started doing that. To make these games more entertaining they started to come up with reasons why the generals were fighting monsters and thus the dungeons. At this point there was still no more roleplaying involved than there is in Diablo. But this is when D&D was released to the masses. Acting came later.

 

So, what you're saying is that first there were miniature wargames. Then there were RPGs, that featured no roleplaying, that were created with no intention of RP, but resulted coincidentally in roleplay later on?

 

It seems kind of a silly concept, but that is what it looks like you're trying to present. Otherwise, you're saying D&D was not originally a roleplaying game.

 

Now with that out of the way, in regards to RPGs I never claimed that monster bashing should be used as the definition of RPGs. I was merely pointing out where I disagree with where you consider the term roleplaying to originate from, at least in this context. I have argued that the term RPG (in regards to computer games) is very broad. As it is currently being used it includes games like Diablo, Oblivion and Fallout. Games that are very different in how they play. What I don't want to do is the create sub-genres for some of the different styles and then have the rest make up the broader definition. I think the term RPG should include all styles and then to make clearer definitions more sub-genres should be coined. We already have the terms action rpg and jrpg, and I think there should be similar sub-genres for the Bethesda and Gothic style as well as the BIS/Bioware style. Every other genre does this, so why shouldn't RPGs?

1) How does Adventure RPG sound to you?

2) You still haven't come up with anyway of discrimination for the classification. Simply naming off games that you want to fit into a genre does not do this. Criteria for classification comes first, then you start classifying games into it. You don't classify by thinking of the titles you want to be RPGs first and then saying simply "these are RPGs" or "this is how it is used." That is arbitrary.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Tale

[Spider]

So, what you're saying is that first there were miniature wargames. Then there were RPGs, that featured no roleplaying, that were created with no intention of RP, but resulted coincidentally in roleplay later on?

 

It seems kind of a silly concept, but that is what it looks like you're trying to present. Otherwise, you're saying D&D was not originally a roleplaying game.

 

No, you're spot on with your original line. At least according to what Gary Gygax have said in interviews. Actually, when I read stuff Gygax is saying, I'm kinda wondering if he ever made the change from monster-bashing. I have a book by him called Role-Playing Mastery (I bought it at a sale just for kicks) and it's more or less all about optimizing your character, then optimizing your party. It's been a while since I looked at it, but there may also be advice on how to not make the rest of the party pissed at you, (because then maybe they won't help you in a fight) but I think that was more in regards to the players, not the player characters. It's packed away at the moment so I can't look it up I'm afraid. It's a fun read none the less.

 

1) How does Adventure RPG sound to you?

 

In regards to the BIS/Bioware style? Sure, it works for me. (I'll get to critera in a sec)

 

2) You still haven't come up with anyway of discrimination for the classification. Simply naming off games that you want to fit into a genre does not do this. Criteria for classification comes first, then you start classifying games into it. You don't classify by thinking of the titles you want to be RPGs first and then saying simply "these are RPGs" or "this is how it is used." That is arbitrary.

 

I wasn't trying to make criteria. I was simply saying how I think it currently works and how I'd do to make it better. It's not that I desperately want to have a genre that includes Diablo, Final Fantasy and Fallout, but I think it's too late to change that.

 

If I were to try and make a criteria for the broad category, I suppose that I'd say tha a RPG is a game where character development plays a significant part in the game (although I'm not too experienced with the jRPGs so tis could be blurring the lines in regards to those). This would include action rpgs, but exclude games where rpg elements are just tacked on for good measure (like GTA). The gray area would be games like Silent Storm and Jagged Alliance, but there will always be games that are cross-genre.

 

(and yes, I am aware that significant is very subjective and not really fit for a criteria)

 

But what I'd most like to see is still the coinage of two new sub genres. Adventure RPGs (for the BIS/Bioware style) and Exploration RPGs for the Gothic/Oblivion style. Making criteria for those would be far simpler since it doesn't need to account for quite as many different styles.

 

(sidenote: on a personal level I would prefer not to call games like Diablo RPGs. Hell, I'd even hesitate to call Oblivion one if I could make up the definition. But I can't. That fight was lost years and years ago. No matter what I think those games will be called RPGs and that's pretty much that. No slight to either game intended, both are great fun if you enjoy their types of games)

[Tale]

(sidenote: on a personal level I would prefer not to call games like Diablo RPGs. Hell, I'd even hesitate to call Oblivion one if I could make up the definition. But I can't. That fight was lost years and years ago. No matter what I think those games will be called RPGs and that's pretty much that. No slight to either game intended, both are great fun if you enjoy their types of games)

 

This gets to the overall point I'm trying to make. It's not "pretty much that." There are people who think people with dissociative disorders are schizophrenic. But, that's not the case. The difference? Psychiatry has an official classification handbook, the DSM. Entertainment software/interactive sciences does not. It's a model that they could one day follow. That I'd like to see them one day follow. The building of a classification guide to aide in communication, as that's the entire purpose of classification.

[Spider]

I'm just saying it's better to pick battles where you have a chance of winning. Classification in this case is a consumer guide and as such it needs to aim to the lowest common denominator. If we're elevating the discussion to a scientific level that may very well change. But changing the casual player's definition (and it's the casual player that is mostly helped by it) will be an almost insurmountable task. There's also the whole process of agreeing on who should actually do the classification.

 

Which also begs the question who am I to decide what is a RPG or not. I know what makes one for me, but I know that I am in no way representative of the majority.

 

(although I suppose the casual gamer's view on things could be changed if somehow you'd get the major gaming companies and a majority of the gaming press to agree on the same system, although I fail to say why they would want to narrow down the RPG category, since there is a good chance that would have an adversary effect on sales)

[Tale]

If we're elevating the discussion to a scientific level that may very well change.

Why can't we?

But changing the casual player's definition (and it's the casual player that is mostly helped by it) will be an almost insurmountable task.

I don't see why it would be.

There's also the whole process of agreeing on who should actually do the classification.

It's not a single person task. It's a task for panels (yes, plural) of those with extensive experience and knowledge in the fields. Edited June 19, 2007 by Tale