Final Fantasy fans explain what 'real' RPGs are

[LlamaGod]

<b>LlamaGod</b>

No one was talking about linearity, nor did I ever say GTA wasn't linear. It's storyline IS quite linear, though you can take missions in any order you want...

I was saying that within the game you have a LOT of freedom to do things you want. That is all.

So either you misread my post and your little jab at my rank becomes quite ironic, or you are putting words in my mouth and setting up a straw man argument.

Why not just try to form an honest point?


As for the wrestling, well... that is what limorkill was talking about. He specifically stated choosing the characters appearance and some starting attributes.

Illiterate indeed...

You fucking idiot, I was replying to how you said things we like in RPGs exsist in other genres/games already.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Actually the roguelikes DO give you a backstory. Usually trying to retrieve something for your god if I remember correctly.

Again, there's a *huge* difference between saying you're to go down in to a dungeon get an artifact and telling you who your character's friends are, what his life is like, who his girlfriend is, etc. and then repeatedly doing that through the entire game.

You're refering to Nethack, which just says that you're going down in the dungeon of doom or whatever to get some amulet.

 

[Jedi359]

So it's better to have the storyline be nothing more than a flimsy pretext for dungeon crawling for hours. than, say, to have a more elaborate storyline decided for you?

 

[Sarvis]

<b>ArcturusXIV</b>

For that matter, Arcanum is just an adventure game that lacks the true depth of PnP.

<b>Limorkil</b>

As I wrote somewhere else, if you take Doom and add character development, dialogue, story and actions other than shooting at what point does it stop being an FPS and start being an RPG?

Basically never. YOu have to add skills, randomization and make it so that the character determines success rather than the player.

I have MANY times described what the gameplay of an RPG is. Again: You have stats, character development (levels), random factors to determine success and the player _chooses_ actions rather than executing them.

An FPS is where you point a cursor at a target and click to fire your weapon.

The more elements you add from the RPG genre to an FPS, the closer you come to being an RPG. If the only factor missing is a random factor for success you are basically an Action RPG.

As for a prefix to add to existing genre titles, how about "Not Really A" As in "Final Fantasy, Not Really A RPG".

How, exactly, will that help you identify an FPS that has all the elements you crave?

<b>Quigs</b>

I don't think Sony had any bearing on what Square decided to do. In fact FF6, widely regarded as the best in the series, was much like FF7 except it had a better story and more interesting characters plus a MUCH better eq system.

That's the thing I really miss... equipment barely exists in modern console RPGs, whereas in FF6 mixing and maxing the relics for best effect was great fun.

<b>LlamaGod</b>


Ok.

I'm pretty sure I was talking to one guy at that point though, and he wasn't talking about non-linearity.

However, you can indeed make any type of game non-linear. In fact, Quake was non-linear. You could do the worlds in any order you chose.

Very few, if any, games get more non-linear than that...

<b>Saint_Proverbius</b>

FFX didn't tell you who your friends were, in fact every friend your character might have had before the start of the game would have been dead for a thousand years. If you are complaining about the people you teamed up with along the way, then just pretend you hate Wakka but have to keep him around because he's the only one who can really hurt flying enemies.

There, now you're roleplaying.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the game being an RPG.

Oh, and yes I probably was thinking of Nethack. Or Angband.

<b>Jedi359</b>

It's not a question of "better," it's a question of whether or not the game can still be an RPG!

If you have a flimsy pretext it's <i>obviously</i> more of an RPG!

 

[Major_Blackhart]

No so-called RPG can compare to Fallout!

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

So it's better to have the storyline be nothing more than a flimsy pretext for dungeon crawling for hours. than, say, to have a more elaborate storyline decided for you?

It's better to not have anything decided for you than to have everything decided for you. Pretty simple concept there. If you have an elaborate story that locks every single aspect of what you're doing and what you're going to do, then you're really doing nothing but fighting anyway, right? You go in to the "elaborate story" with everything predetermined for you. Nothing you do in the game really matters, since you're just bipassing checkpoints by killing things.

 

[crufty]

So it's better to have the storyline be nothing more than a flimsy pretext for dungeon crawling for hours. than, say, to have a more elaborate storyline decided for you?

Yes.

 

[Limorkil]

<b>Limorkil</b>

As I wrote somewhere else, if you take Doom and add character development, dialogue, story and actions other than shooting at what point does it stop being an FPS and start being an RPG?

Basically never. YOu have to add skills, randomization and make it so that the character determines success rather than the player.

I have MANY times described what the gameplay of an RPG is. Again: You have stats, character development (levels), random factors to determine success and the player _chooses_ actions rather than executing them.

I tried playing Morrowind yesterday without telling my character what to do. Suffice to say he did not get very far. He has marksman skill yet if I fired an arrow in the general direction of a monster but did not try to aim then he missed entirely. If I used a sword and went into combat facing my opponent but not really trying to aim my attacks then I found that he tended to move to one side or another and I'd lose, or I'd get low on health and my character refused to drink a potion.

So what you're telling me is that Morrowind isn't an RPG, and neither is Gothic 2 or a whole host of other games that have been called RPGs. Dungeon Siege is most definately an RPG, not an RTS, because the characters do all the work?

And I don't know if you've ever played an FPS or not, but generally you choose the action and the guy on screen executes it. Quite often you don't even have to aim. Try executing the actions yourself and you usually get bullet holes in the TV screen.

 

[Deacdo]

I've always considered "console RPGs" to be adventure games with stats. I all you do is fight and listen to speach or read text. Oh yeah, can't forget those horrible little mini games the Japanese like to throw in.

Doesn't make 'em bad...but they're not the same genre as PC RPGs (which I also have, and likely always will, consider actual RPGs).

 

[Sol Invictus]

The point, really, is not to pan to either extreme. In my opinion, neither the complete lack of a pretext or context nor the complete inhibition of any choice by writing a full story upon which you merely have to bypass checkpoints are good choices. A middle ground, like the one seen in Fallout beats either of them.

 

[Sarvis]

<b>limorkil</b>

Look, it's kind of simple. Yes, in an RPG you tell your character what to do. In more action oriented genres you actually perform the action.

I realy don't think I can help a person who can't tell the difference in gameplay between Quake and Diablo though. You are either trolling me, frustratingly incoherant or... well I'll leave the rest unsaid.

<b>Deacdo</b>

Good for you. You've always been wrong. Just like the people who call Legend of Zelda an RPG.

<b>Exitium</b>


At either extreme those games are RPGs. The liking or disliking of certain styles, at either extreme, hardly affects what genre a game is. I'm really NOT a huge fan of survival horror games for instance, but Eternal Darkness was a great game. Does that mean ED was a survival horror title and Resident Evil isn't? NO!

 

[Jedi359]

The point, really, is not to pan to either extreme. In my opinion, neither the complete lack of a pretext or context nor the complete inhibition of any choice by writing a full story upon which you merely have to bypass checkpoints are good choices. A middle ground, like the one seen in Fallout beats either of them.

This is an opinion I can respect. Saying "I'd much rather play a game with no story than one with an elaborate one" sounds ridiculous to me. At that point, you sound more like you accept not based on any merits, but rather because it's NOT Final Fantasy.

It's better to not have anything decided for you than to have everything decided for you. Pretty simple concept there. If you have an elaborate story that locks every single aspect of what you're doing and what you're going to do, then you're really doing nothing but fighting anyway, right? You go in to the "elaborate story" with everything predetermined for you. Nothing you do in the game really matters, since you're just bipassing checkpoints by killing things.

Better than a no story line game, where you're just bypassing the chekpoints without anything to spur you on.

I "bypass the checkpoints" to see how the story plays out.

Games like Final Fantasy make up for a lack of customization by having engaging stories. Having only one path means they can dedicate their time to making sure that the one path is interesting to play through.

I couldn't force myself to play through Fallout or Planescape. I think both are just not interesting. But I've played and replayed pretty much every Final Fantasy because I love the characters and Stories presented.

I hate having to stumble around trying to figure out what to do. It bores me to no end. I prefer a DM who spells out what needs to be done, and it's the type of DM that I am.
In the end it's all a matter of opinion.

My personal definition of "RPG" is any game in which a. conflicts are resolved primarily using random number generators, and the way to get the edge is by working to modify those numbers. This is different from games where player reflexes are the prime reolution factor. b. The player's avatar "grows" in some way over the course of the game, either personally (story-wise), physically (stat-wise), or both.

Adding further stipulations is, IMO, an intellectually dishonest way of trying to illegitamize certain games in the genre that the definer does not approve of.

 

[crufty]

This is different from games where player reflexes are the prime reolution factor. b. The player's avatar "grows" in some way over the course of the game, either personally (story-wise), physically (stat-wise), or both.

Adding further stipulations is, IMO, an intellectually dishonest way of trying to illegitamize certain games in the genre that the definer does not approve of.

Maybe. But when you have a pre-defined role, and you can only play that role, is that really what RPG's are all about? Or is that more in the adventure genre?

 

[Jedi359]

Maybe. But when you have a pre-defined role, and you can only play that role, is that really what RPG's are all about? Or is that more in the adventure genre?

I don't think so. I base my specifications on the original RPG, DnD.

As far as I can tell, the only requirements to succesfully play that game are the ones I listed above. If it were required to have branching storylines, and multiple choices, and elaborate role creation, then it would be impossible to play the game without these things. It's not. It is, however, impossible to play without opposed die checks and character development.

The player's manual now outlines character kits that tell you what to take if you don't want to create your own character. My characters never bothered with personal backgrounds.

Is it a good RPG? That's a matter of opinion. Is it an RPG? Yes.

The problem I have with everyone's definition of "all RPGs must have lot's of choices," is that it doesn't have any grounding beyond the fact that they enjoy that type of game.

What basis do you have for defining RPG the way to do? I've based my definition on the original RPG. What do you base yours on?

 

[Sarvis]

This is different from games where player reflexes are the prime reolution factor. b. The player's avatar "grows" in some way over the course of the game, either personally (story-wise), physically (stat-wise), or both.

Adding further stipulations is, IMO, an intellectually dishonest way of trying to illegitamize certain games in the genre that the definer does not approve of.

Maybe. But when you have a pre-defined role, and you can only play that role, is that really what RPG's are all about? Or is that more in the adventure genre?

RPGs, in video games, are not about roleplaying at all. RPG denotes a style of gameplay and NOTHING else. Every aspect of actual roleplaying can be done in any genre of game, _including_ adventure. This makes roleplaying very poor thing to try and denote genres by, since all games would end up being in the same genre even if they featured vastly different gameplay.

 

[RGE]

I wouldn't call roguelikes RPGs, but that's probably just me. I understand that those old turnbased combat games were inspired by PnP RPGs, but even if they were ever called RPGs by their creators, we now have newer games that better emulate the PnP RPG experience. And thus I think that it's somewhat misleading to focus only on the gameplay and not on what the game is about and what the character is doing and how it's being done. And I agree that RPG is a fuzzy word, but I'd rather have it remain fuzzy than agree to a definition that doesn't suit me. I mean, why should I be the one who has to find a less suitable word for my favourite computer game genre?

I recently got Civilization III, which must be a CRPG, since the brave warriors have stats, have levels (controls number of HPs now), are at the mercy of randomized battle results, and the player tells them what to do instead of manually doing it. I even get to make up my own stories, and right now the story follows a bunch of murderous of Iroquois who are trying to steal horses from the Incan republic. Beats having to follow someone else's plot!

Oh, wait, does the number of characters make it a Strategy-RPG?

Perhaps defining CRPGs is like defining pornography. As far as I know pornography is media that is designed to sexually arouse people, so by using a similar definition I'd like to define CRPGs as games that are designed to let the player roleplay. Games can do this in a lot of different ways, but some people like some ways more than others, and I prefer the way of freedom. Yes, this can lead to people disagreeing on whether a particular game fits the genre, but at least most people can agree on the definition of the genre. Right?

 

[Jedi359]

Very good. I agree with RGE.

Ultimately it is what you make of it.

 

[Sarvis]

I wouldn't call roguelikes RPGs, but that's probably just me. I understand that those old turnbased combat games were inspired by PnP RPGs, but even if they were ever called RPGs by their creators, we now have newer games that better emulate the PnP RPG experience. And thus I think that it's somewhat misleading to focus only on the gameplay and not on what the game is about and what the character is doing and how it's being done. And I agree that RPG is a fuzzy word, but I'd rather have it remain fuzzy than agree to a definition that doesn't suit me. I mean, why should I be the one who has to find a less suitable word for my favourite computer game genre?

I recently got Civilization III, which must be a CRPG, since the brave warriors have stats, have levels (controls number of HPs now), are at the mercy of randomized battle results, and the player tells them what to do instead of manually doing it. I even get to make up my own stories, and right now the story follows a bunch of murderous of Iroquois who are trying to steal horses from the Incan republic. Beats having to follow someone else's plot!

Oh, wait, does the number of characters make it a Strategy-RPG?

Perhaps defining CRPGs is like defining pornography. As far as I know pornography is media that is designed to sexually arouse people, so by using a similar definition I'd like to define CRPGs as games that are designed to let the player roleplay. Games can do this in a lot of different ways, but some people like some ways more than others, and I prefer the way of freedom. Yes, this can lead to people disagreeing on whether a particular game fits the genre, but at least most people can agree on the definition of the genre. Right?

The problem with a definition like that is it could include games that aren't anything like CRPGs. Hell, what about those Japanese dating sims? Those are designed to let players roleplay, but would you consider one an RPG?

Your definition just includes too much, becuase it has the potential to include everything once designers realize there is a market for games which allow roleplaying.

 

[dojoteef]

What basis do you have for defining RPG the way to do? I've based my definition on the original RPG. What do you base yours on?

I think you have a flawed view of how to define an RPG. The way I look at it is D&D did nothing more than lay a foundation upon which people could roleplay. Stats, levels, dice, etc were just a means to have a unified method that allowed people to play a role that they wanted to play. D&D certainly wasn't the start of role playing. It was a means of formalizing the childhood ability to pretend you are someplace else, a superhero, a cartoon character, whatever.

If you look at all the material that D&D put out, it was not just a stat based system. They also put out settings, races, specific quests and adventures. They were able to do that solely because they created one possible formalism for role playing.

That's why I say that an RPG is ultimately about choice, the choice to be able to play a role as you see fit within certain agreed upon constraints of the game (whether it's tabletop, console, pc, live action, or whatever). Now if you want to say that FF is an RPG, feel free to because I guess you can always say that the role they give you is the one you wanted to choose. For me, I'll stick with RPGs that give me more choice on how I wish to fit into the storyline.

So I guess, to answer your question, I base mine on the ORIGINAL original RPG, childhood flights of fancy , not what I term the formalization, which is D&D.

RPGs, in video games, are not about roleplaying at all. RPG denotes a style of gameplay and NOTHING else. Every aspect of actual roleplaying can be done in any genre of game, _including_ adventure. This makes roleplaying very poor thing to try and denote genres by, since all games would end up being in the same genre even if they featured vastly different gameplay.

What are you getting at ultimately? So far you've complained that RPG isn't an adequate word. You claim RPG defines almost every video game. You've done nothing to further the conversation of what an RPG is (or whatever term you wish to use for it). Ultimately it doesn't matter the term you use for it. That's like saying that the term adventure game isn't adequate. People know what you mean when you refer to an adventure game, same thing as with an RPG. The question is how wide or how limited is the scope of the term RPG. While some consider FF to be an RPG, others consider it an adventure game with stats. That's the question that's being debated in this thread. If you want a better term for the genre we currently refer to as RPG, start a new thread for it because every single one of your posts has been trying to answer a completely different question than the one posed at the beginning of the thread.

 

[Sarvis]

I think you have a flawed view of how to define an RPG. The way I look at it is D&D did nothing more than lay a foundation upon which people could roleplay. Stats, levels, dice, etc were just a means to have a unified method that allowed people to play a role that they wanted to play. D&D certainly wasn't the start of role playing. It was a means of formalizing the childhood ability to pretend you are someplace else, a superhero, a cartoon character, whatever.

If you look at all the material that D&D put out, it was not just a stat based system. They also put out settings, races, specific quests and adventures. They were able to do that solely because they created one possible formalism for role playing.

That's why I say that an RPG is ultimately about choice, the choice to be able to play a role as you see fit within certain agreed upon constraints of the game (whether it's tabletop, console, pc, live action, or whatever). Now if you want to say that FF is an RPG, feel free to because I guess you can always say that the role they give you is the one you wanted to choose. For me, I'll stick with RPGs that give me more choice on how I wish to fit into the storyline.

So I guess, to answer your question, I base mine on the ORIGINAL original RPG, childhood flights of fancy , not what I term the formalization, which is D&D.

That is fine for what RPG means to you as a word. However, the Genre of video games called RPG is based on D&D. Roguelikes grew out of D&D, yes D&D specifically, and RPGs grew out of roguelikes.

What are you getting at ultimately? So far you've complained that RPG isn't an adequate word. You claim RPG defines almost every video game.

I never said it wasn't an adequate word, nor tyhat it defines every type of game. I said that if we used <i>RGE's</i> improper definition of it that the RPG genre would cover all types of game.

You've done nothing to further the conversation of what an RPG is (or whatever term you wish to use for it). Ultimately it doesn't matter the term you use for it. That's like saying that the term adventure game isn't adequate. People know what you mean when you refer to an adventure game, same thing as with an RPG. The question is how wide or how limited is the scope of the term RPG. While some consider FF to be an RPG, others consider it an adventure game with stats. That's the question that's being debated in this thread. If you want a better term for the genre we currently refer to as RPG, start a new thread for it because every single one of your posts has been trying to answer a completely different question than the one posed at the beginning of the thread.

There was no question posted at the beginning of the thread, and I think you are possibly badly misinterpreting everything I've said.

Final Fantasy and Arcanum have things in common. They just may not be the things you, RGE or limokil <i>care</i> about. It is those common elements which should be used to define what an RPG is, because they have both always been considered RPGs.

Those common elements are stats, randomized elements and choosing what a character does instead of performing the actions yourself.

I define RPGs in this way because it actually covers the things you find the same in ALL actual RPGs. It could possibly use some work, considering RGE just pointed out I accidentally included games like CivIII in it.

However, it should be noted that limorkil's criteria for an RPG wouldn't work for xJedX who wants non-linearity to be required. That is the problem with trying to define a genre based only on elements you like to see. Everyone likes different things in a game, so you will all have a disjoint set of definitions for the genre and people will come in here claiming things are RPGs which other people don't consider RPGs.

Furthermore, most of the elements you guys are citing as making games an RPG can be used in ANY style of game. Once developers start putting these elements into more styles of game, you guys will be considering FPS's as RPGs just because of that. You guys really want to have reviews for Quake IV on this site? Or GTA:SA?


Lastly, I think the point which got me into this thread is that you guys are trying to do exactly the same thing the FF Fanboys are in the thread linked to in the first post: Define the RPG genre based only on specific features you like so you can exclude games you don't like.

 

[dojoteef]

Well I guess I needed to feel some validation for my definition of RPG (however weak willed that might make me seem :D), and I've pretty much found it in the wikipedia under role-playing game. It states pretty much everything I did and more, like the fact that rpgs evovled from wargaming. I suggest people head here and see what they think of the definitions they give for role-playing game and follow the links to see how cRPG is defined.

I think comments regarding the definitions given in the wikipedia would be better than us squabbling over what we believe. True the wikipedia is upkept by normal people like you and I, but the definitions and history of the genre are well spelled out and might even give you more fuel for your argument whatever it is.

 

[Limorkil]

<b>limorkil</b>

Look, it's kind of simple. Yes, in an RPG you tell your character what to do. In more action oriented genres you actually perform the action.

I realy don't think I can help a person who can't tell the difference in gameplay between Quake and Diablo though. You are either trolling me, frustratingly incoherant or... well I'll leave the rest unsaid.

Its not simple though is it? That's why you have to evade giving me an answer.

And I can tell the difference between Quake and Diablo gameplay, but that doesn't mean I can accurately catergorize whether one of those is an RPG and the other is not. If you are implying that Diablo is an RPG, then what makes it an RPG? If I make Quake isometric does it become an RPG? How about if I let you choose one of three characters to begin with? How about if I let you level those characters? How about if I add some shops and let you buy and sell items? Given that Quake and Diablo have fundamentally the same gameplay - run round and kill stuff - its only a matter of time before Quake looks very similar to Diablo. Your argument is that Quake can never be an RPG whereas Diablo is an RPG, but if you take all these steps to make Quake more like Diablo then clearly it becomes an RPG at some point.

Lets face it, we cannot define RPG in such a way that all games we recognize as RPGs fall into the set but none of the ones that we do not think of as RPGs fall in. The best we can do is probably identify which game, or games, in our collective experience have the most "RPGness" about them. Even then, I bet we all argue over which game is truest to the term "RPG".

 

[Sarvis]

<b>dojoteef</b>

I have read the Wikipedia definition. It basically says CRPGs are games which lift gameplay elements from PnP RPGs. I have maintained throughout this discussion, or maybe the "definition of CRPG thread," that the only elements that _could_ be lifted from PnP RPGs when the CRPG genre got it's start were the stats, levels and how combat was handled.

It goes on to say a little later that a lot of it is about stats and levels, and the gaining thereof, though it does say an intricate plot is usually found. It does NOT say anything about being able to affect that plot, non-linearity, or choosing your character or ihs motivations.

I'd stay away from using plot as part of the definition though because I still believe...

Let's see, I'll say it this way:

Gameplay is how a plot is expressed in video games.

You could design a plot, then attach any style of gameplay to that plot.

<b>limorkil</b>

Diablo is not an RPG. It is an Action RPG.

Yes, if you start adding elements from Diablo into Quake you get closer and closer to being an Action RPG. If you added elements from Arcanum into quake you would get closer and closer to being an RPG as well. This proves nothing except that when you add enough elements from one genre into another you end up as either a hybrid or being the other genre!

If you have a glass half full of vodka and add half a glass of orange juice to it you get a screwdriver, a hybrid drink. If you get a bigger glass, use the same amount of vodka and keep adding orange juice pretty soon you basically just have orange juice with a tiny bit of vodka in there.

The storyline in Quake could, of course, have been expressed as an RPG by the way. However, if all you did was take Arcanum's storyline and put it in Quake you still have Quake. It's when you start taking <i>gameplay elements</i> that you start changing the genre of a game.

undamentally the same gameplay - run round and kill stuff

That's not gameplay. Essentially, gameplay is <b>how</b> you run around and kill stuff.

<i>Lets face it, we cannot define RPG in such a way that all games we recognize as RPGs fall into the set but none of the ones that we do not think of as RPGs fall in. The best we can do is probably identify which game, or games, in our collective experience have the most "RPGness" about them. Even then, I bet we all argue over which game is truest to the term "RPG".</i>

Yes, we can. We can do it by looking at gameplay and deciding based solely on that. If a game expresses elements of gameplay from multiple genres it is simply a hybrid.

Frankly, you should be able to tell what the genre of a game is within five minutes of starting the game. If not, you are no longer making the decision based on it's gameplay.

 

[dojoteef]

<b>dojoteef</b>

I have read the Wikipedia definition. It basically says CRPGs are games which lift gameplay elements from PnP RPGs. I have maintained throughout this discussion, or maybe the "definition of CRPG thread," that the only elements that _could_ be lifted from PnP RPGs when the CRPG genre got it's start were the stats, levels and how combat was handled.

From the article:

The term is also used as a name for a genre of video games that almost always lack the "role-playing" element of pen-and-paper games but borrow many gameplay elements from said games. These games are called CRPGs which stands for "computer role-playing games" or "console role-playing games" depending on whether the game is played on a personal computer or on a video game console.

Which is as I said before, stats, dice, levels are the gameplay elements that were able to be pulled by the early video games that wanted to emulate the PnP experience. They aren't necessarily the only foundation for role-playing. Most "cRPGs" don't actually include the ability to role-play, which in my opinion doesn't make them RPGs. Heck it's been discuss to death on this thread already that the early cRPGs were nothing more than dungeon crawls, they had no role-playing whatsoever, thus they aren't really RPGs. All they did was lift the gameplay mechanics which in no means did D&D expect to be the only thing required for a true role-playing game. They were a step in the right direction though because they helped lay a foundation to have role-playing later on once the cabability was there. It seems that you are saying simply because computers were limited in scope at the time, we should stay within the limitations as opposed to taking it at the spirit of the original inception?

It goes on to say a little later that a lot of it is about stats and levels, and the gaining thereof, though it does say an intricate plot is usually found. It does NOT say anything about being able to affect that plot, non-linearity, or choosing your character or ihs motivations.

Also, never once did I mention plot or non-linearity. Though I do think having a strong plot and the ability to affect the storyline to be points that strengthen an RPG. All I mention is the ability for you to choose how the character fits into the storyline. Now I admit I was being a bit simplistic in this, since I didn't mention how that has to be done. The thing is I don't believe there is a specific way to do. As long as you have a characterization that has strengths and weakness for the character, and you play to those strengths and weakness then it that's playing the role. I do also believe that the character should progress during the game, I just don't say it has to be by leveling, or by gaining stats, etc. And just to let you know, here's one of the places where I discuss choice:

That's why I say that an RPG is ultimately about choice, the choice to be able to play a role as you see fit within certain agreed upon constraints of the game...

So playing the character within the storyline (whether linear or not, good story or not) is a constraint inherent in playing someone else's game.

I'd stay away from using plot as part of the definition though because I still believe...

So as I said, plot was not part my defintion of an RPG.

Also, Sarvis you obviously didn't read through the article and follow the links, or else you would have come upon the link to GNS Theory. It describes what different people get out of RPGs, which also becomes a way of defining RPGs. It stands for Gamer Narrativist Simulationist Theory, which are the three ways that people seem to tend to play RPGs.

This discussion about the definition of an RPG isn't a new one, it's been discussed for a very long time by RPG gamers. Why not read through some of the discussions and ideas to understand where they are all coming from.

Frankly, you should be able to tell what the genre of a game is within five minutes of starting the game. If not, you are no longer making the decision based on it's gameplay.

I am able to define games within the first five minutes of playing, but it's not only based on gameplay mechanics. The thing is when I play a strategy game, I know it's a strategy game no matter what additional features they add, but if I used your definition of RPG a large number of strategy games start to be cRPGs. Games like Praetorians, Rome:Total War, Silent Storm, Warcraft III, ALL would be defined as cRPGs, though anyone that plays them would say that they are in fact strategy games with RPG elements like abilities, leveling up, no direct control over how your characters perform the actions (you don't actually shoot for them, you tell them what to do and they do it), and even randomization (shot spread, percent chance to hit based on abilities, etc).

What I believe you can't seem to get your head around is that EVERY genre of games borrows from other genres. The genres are constantly being redefined with each new addition to a genre. So maybe trying to formalize the concept of an RPG is a fruitless task or maybe we have to go about it a different way. Instead of saying this narrow or wide definition is what an RPG is and find out we've included/excluded games that we think belong/don't belong to the genre why not break the genre up. This has already been partly done with the definition of Console RPG vs. PC RPG. Maybe those monikers aren't the best way to state the difference, but they are most definitely as seperation of what seem to be two conflicting stances of what an RPG is.

 

[Sarvis]

Which is as I said before, stats, dice, levels are the gameplay elements that were able to be pulled by the early video games that wanted to emulate the PnP experience. They aren't necessarily the only foundation for role-playing. Most "cRPGs" don't actually include the ability to role-play, which in my opinion doesn't make them RPGs. Heck it's been discuss to death on this thread already that the early cRPGs were nothing more than dungeon crawls, they had no role-playing whatsoever, thus they aren't really RPGs. All they did was lift the gameplay mechanics which in no means did D&D expect to be the only thing required for a true role-playing game. They were a step in the right direction though because they helped lay a foundation to have role-playing later on once the cabability was there. It seems that you are saying simply because computers were limited in scope at the time, we should stay within the limitations as opposed to taking it at the spirit of the original inception?

I'm saying we should limit the _definition_ to something very much like what limitations allowed at that time. I'm not saying we should limit games themselves to those limitations!

Limiting the definition to such a core, basic level gives us essentially what is at the heart of a CRPG. If you look at Arcanum and compare it to Final Fantasy X, you can pull things out that they have in common. Those things in common are the same things The Bard's Tale had when it first came out, or the Gold Box games. Those things are the _essence_ of what CRPGs are. (Should be noted that the term CRPG is fairly new, and it always used to be just RPG even when referring to computer games.)

Also, never once did I mention plot or non-linearity. Though I do think having a strong plot and the ability to affect the storyline to be points that strengthen an RPG. All I mention is the ability for you to choose how the character fits into the storyline. Now I admit I was being a bit simplistic in this, since I didn't mention how that has to be done. The thing is I don't believe there is a specific way to do. As long as you have a characterization that has strengths and weakness for the character, and you play to those strengths and weakness then it that's playing the role. I do also believe that the character should progress during the game, I just don't say it has to be by leveling, or by gaining stats, etc. And just to let you know, here's one of the places where I discuss choice:

I know you didn't mention everything I did, but I'm directing this at the general population as well as you specifically... heh.

You want to choose how the character fits into the storyline, which is fine. <i>However</i>, this is not one of the basic elements of what RPGs are and <i>furthermore</i> you could do that in any style of gameplay!

You can have a full on action game where the character chooses which side to fight on, or where the player keeps switching sides and playing one side against the other. This has nothing to do with the gameplay that makes a game an RPG. This kind of choice, this kind of complex plot can be expressed in any style.

The story and elements which affect the story are quite separate from the gameplay of a game. The gameplay is simply how the player accomplishes goals that move the story along.

So as I said, plot was not part my defintion of an RPG.
Also, Sarvis you obviously didn't read through the article and follow the links, or else you would have come upon the link to GNS Theory. It describes what different people get out of RPGs, which also becomes a way of defining RPGs. It stands for Gamer Narrativist Simulationist Theory, which are the three ways that people seem to tend to play RPGs.
This discussion about the definition of an RPG isn't a new one, it's been discussed for a very long time by RPG gamers. Why not read through some of the discussions and ideas to understand where they are all coming from.

Plot was part of Wikipedias definition...

No, I didn't read everything there. Got too much other crap to do, most of which involves GTA and ShadowGuard at the moment... well... that and work.

I am able to define games within the first five minutes of playing, but it's not only based on gameplay mechanics. The thing is when I play a strategy game, I know it's a strategy game no matter what additional features they add, but if I used your definition of RPG a large number of strategy games start to be cRPGs. Games like Praetorians, Rome:Total War, Silent Storm, Warcraft III, ALL would be defined as cRPGs, though anyone that plays them would say that they are in fact strategy games with RPG elements like abilities, leveling up, no direct control over how your characters perform the actions (you don't actually shoot for them, you tell them what to do and they do it), and even randomization (shot spread, percent chance to hit based on abilities, etc).
What I believe you can't seem to get your head around is that EVERY genre of games borrows from other genres. The genres are constantly being redefined with each new addition to a genre. So maybe trying to formalize the concept of an RPG is a fruitless task or maybe we have to go about it a different way. Instead of saying this narrow or wide definition is what an RPG is and find out we've included/excluded games that we think belong/don't belong to the genre why not break the genre up. This has already been partly done with the definition of Console RPG vs. PC RPG. Maybe those monikers aren't the best way to state the difference, but they are most definitely as seperation of what seem to be two conflicting stances of what an RPG is.

You say you can define a game within 5 minutes, but how can you know what choices you will have in the storyline?

You can't. You know that it is an RPG before you ever have any chance whatsoever to see the elements people here are claiming define a CRPG.

You see my point?

As for Strategy titles... I'm not sure what seperates them from RPGs. I don't play many pure Strategy games so I'm not very familiar with them. If they are borrowing elements from CRPGs then they may very well be moving towards being a hybrid Tactical RPG like FF Tactics of course...

What _does_ separate the two styles of game? The number of "units"? The fact that you have units instead of characters? The lack of a main character?