Video Game Forums

Give me your opinions. I want, nay, demand them. What makes a video game of the Role Playing genre? Do you base your beliefs in this on the old D&D pen and paper/dice based games? Oldschool video RPG's? Newer style forays into the class?

The sole point of the name "role-playing game" is to play a game (as in, you have an objective to complete) and to play a role (as in, you are allowed as much freedom as possible within the game system, and your role develops over time).

There is a good article about this on vgf.com. I read it, and if you did, that's about all you need unless you're looking for people's opinions.

First person to say "it has to have a good plot" is getting a 2x4 to the face.

To me, it's a game that has statistics that can be raised throughout the game thought fighting. Sure, in Mega Man Battle Network, you have to buy the HP and Attack increments, but you get the money for them by fighting.

I know I used to dogmatically hold onto "Zelda's an RPG", but I've recently decided otherwise.


Where are these lemmings going? The Super Nintendo Super Shire! Hop in line and follow them there!

On a practical level, I think it's just based on how many RPG-like qualities a game has; the more it has, the more certain that it is an RPG. Things such as (turn-based) battles, equipment, statistics, characters and character development, story and plot devices, etc. etc. etc. Basically, we have a few games that we are damn sure are RPGs: Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Breath of Fire, et al. And, we have things were are damn sure aren't RPGs: Super Mario Bros. and other platformers, Raiden and other shmups, Tetris and other puzzle games, Doom and other FPSs, Gran Turismo and other racing games, et al. Compare how a game 'feels' against existing games.

Technically, any game which has a character under your control on the screen (or implicitly 'behind' the screen) is a role-playing game, if the term RPG were to be taken literally. But, if we were to standardize the definition like this, 98% of all games would be in this genre. So, we add a base minimum of requirements such as statistics, character development (both leveling up or pertaining to plot), choices, etc. Things that were taken from the pen-and-paper RPGs that inspired the genre. And then we have a list of things that would really point out that it's an RPG, like a long storyline, turn-based/ATB battles, menu systems, abilities, shops, game developer was Square, and pretty much anything from the Grand List of Console Role PLaying Game Cliches.

Originally posted by A Singularity of Spacetime:
The sole point of the name "role-playing game" is to play a game (as in, you have an objective to complete) and to play a role (as in, you are allowed as much freedom as possible within the game system, and your role develops over time).

There is a good article about this on vgf.com. I read it, and if you did, that's about all you need unless you're looking for people's opinions.

Yes, but it's really up to the player to decide. I'm not some idiot who just doesn't know.

And that article really passes up the development of multiple story possibilities. Games are very advanced, and some now allow you to completely change the outcome of the story.



[ May 08, 2005, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: IT CAME FROM BEYOND ]

^ If an RPG must have multiple outcomes, there can't be more than 30 RPGs altogether in the history of games. (And I'm not saying there are 30 such games. I'm benevolently limiting their number. Maybe those 30 games can't really be found.)

I'm not completely sure of this, but not every classic RPG has skill development through fighting.

The nature of classic RPGs is resumed in: Character development, character skills (which differentiate characters and may or may not change over time), significant choices and (puts on anti-2x4 shield) plot development. You play a role-playing game to watch your character develop in parallel to a world, with your choices having a major bearing in the course of the story. It doesn't have to have a good plot, but it does have to have a plot, and let you play with the plot.

Under those concepts, there are many RPGs, and many almost-RPGs. Metroid Fusion is an almost-RPG. There is plot and character development, but the road to the endgame is completely straight. Chrono Trigger is an RPG. Plot development, character development, character skills, and flexible plot.

Gunjin battles are RPGs. No question to that, eh?

I never said multiple endings would be a requirement for games to be RPGs. I said that assessment you linked to doesn't take it into consideration that in some games, you can completely change the story by doing things differently. As a rule for me, anything heravily action-oriented with a platform engine is not an RPG. Possibly the only exception could be the earlier Castlevania games, or Zelda II. The Metroid series, while it has advanced plot and character development, is a different breed altogether. I think some communication with other people is firstoff a necessity for a game to be an RPG.

And a Gunjin battle is an RP, in the messageboard sense. I'm talking RPG as in video games, here. They're not just defined by the mere act of role playing, as we've seen here.



[ May 09, 2005, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: IT CAME FROM BEYOND ]

An RPG's gotta have boobies. [img]redface.gif[/img]

Sab, you are wise beyond your years.

Where does Tomba! fit in that?

Being put under RPG by consensus is good enough. I've yet to see a satisfactory working definition of RPG.

Case and point: CodieKitty's definition includes games like Master of Orion games and Heroes of Might and Magic games.

Originally posted by IT CAME FROM BEYOND:
Sab, you are wise beyond your years.

I'm really a Maia sent to this world to spread such wisdom.

The Heroes games seem more strategy than RPG to me, but that's just me. I never cared about stats in Heroes anyway, much less about plot development, having completely avoided the campaign.

Codie's definition probably includes "Battle City" as an RPG, as you have to blast enemy tanks to obtain powerups, including the upgrades.

But in general I guess there is no real definition of an RPG. You can split games into categories: Square RPGs, pencil and paper games, Zelda, Metroid, Metal Gear...

Every game is reduced to an exercise of managing variables. The height of that block over there, the mortgages you have to make to get enough money for the house on Boardwalk, filling your gaugemeter for whatever combo you're planning, the length of the wavedash. Many of these variables are in permanent increase throughout the game, and there are so many games with such variables that the sole concept is hardly enough to discern an RPG from a non.

Plot development would limit the query results a bit more, but Codie discarded it already.

So having said that, the most extended vision of RPGs is that the set R of role-playing games is equal to the set of games with a structure similar to that seen in Square games, which may be an insufficient definintion for some, but it has thousands of FF7 fanboys to back it up.

Meh.

nevermind, this post is stupid

[ May 13, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Knuckles173 ]

All of your posts are stupid, Knux.

I love you all, too!


Where are these lemmings going? The Super Nintendo Super Shire! Hop in line and follow them there!

*doesn't post*