In my eyes a game is an RPG if it satisfies a few criteria:

1) It allows me to create my own character/backstory in some way within the game.

2) There's a way to develop that character (leveling/stats/plot actions).

3) It doesn't force me to do things a certain way.

4) There's an overarching plot or story my character can involve itself in.

Some games do more of #2 than #1, and those are called Action-Adventure games as far as I'm concerned. This includes The Witcher, Risen, Gothic, Zelda, etc.

Yea sure let's have everyone sets his own personal definition of RPGs and everyone blissfully saying that a X game is an RPG because he has what he likes.

there is no debate... Skyrim IS a RPG this is fact, it contains every requirement and trait that defines what an rpg is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either missinformed or a hateboy really.

for those that dont know, traits that denounce the RPG genre: Mathematical driven combat as in variables probabilities, statistics etc, influencing combat and non combat gameplay; character/setting centric perspectives; progression system, usually revolving around level scalings, itemization scaling, abilities scaling etc.

If the definition of "RPG" was clear and stone-set we wouldn't even be here discussing would we?

Words and phrases are given meaning by the men (and women) who use them after all.

lol Wikipedia is always correct .. gotta love this one, got it in .. wikipedia ? :wink_smile:
But you know, your sig is right : forum, internet and all that, opinions are like [censored], everyone has one, and no one cares of yours

Check my post in the 2nd page.
It is not a personal view or anything although it is what i always considered an rpg to be and it's the definition used to define rpgs so that someone know what a game is about. Like we define action etc and every other genre or sub-genre.


You are obviously clueless. Nothing is flawless apparently, but Wikipedia is the second thing that is close to flawless next to real experts views. If you actually do a search or learn how it works you will realise that. If you don't care about my opinion you wouldn't feel the need to state it, you would just ignore it

1. "Fulfilling quests" - what does it mean? At which point I'm fulfilling a quest? If I complete an objective "Assault the Reichstag" in Call of Duty: World at War, am I fulfilling a quest?

2. "developed story-telling and narrative elements" - Completely nonsensical and/or vague. Not to mention if this is a requirement most games touted as RPGs aren't such, including what Wikipedia itself considers core of the genre - Akalabeth, Dungeon Master, Eye of the Beholder, etc.

3. "player character development" - Again, what does it mean? When I permanently increase my life in Cave Story, does that count as character development?

4. "complexity" - see 2. Down to same examples of games.

5. "replayability" - I fail to see how this has anything to do with roleplaying games.

6. "immersion" - IMMERSHUN, the greatest weasel word of them all which everyone loves to use but nobody can say what it means.



Game is, I quote, "A form of art in which participants, themed players, use tokens to manage resources in pursuit of a goal". This definition can be applied to everything from Poker to Soccer.

Minecraft doesn't have a goal. Therefore it's not a game. It's a toy. You can make up the goal yourself, but it doesn't have a goal on its own.



Hahaha oh wow.

things dont need to be "set in stone" you dont have "definitions" to many things, that are still what they are regardless.
you dont have definition to what the sky is set in stone, yet everyone knows the sky is the sky... just lke Skyrim is a RPG regardless of what anyone's opinion or personal definition.

as for the people who give names, I'd say critics are what started the whole genre molds deal, and they clearly state Skyrim as a RPG

Yeah I've looked at the stuff in your post from Wikipedia.

I think I wrote what it said, just in different words. Also as others have said, Wikipedia isn't really suited for this sort of thing.

I already answered in these "remarks" of yours and i believe what i say is perfectly comprehensible. An RPG focuses on all of these elements as the quote already suggests, so either you are trolling or failing to see the obvious.

Immersion - none knows what it means? Where did you get that? Did you make a survey of something? Perhaps you are the one who doesn't?

Also about wikipedia - as i said, it is only second to experts sources - just make a simple search and prove yourselves wrong. Nothing else.



If wiki isn't probably none is. Anyway the point is that there has to be a stone-set definition if only for the following logic:
We use words to define things. RPGs are a genre of games and there has to be stone-set definition in order for as to be able to define it. If there weren't stone-set definitions for most things, we wouldn't be able to communicate or define something in which we are interested in.

As you can see there might not be a single prototypical feature that makes something an RPG. It's a list of things, things that might come together to produce an RPG.
(which was implied in my last post, you just didnt understand it there)



What a horrible definition. Dont even wanna know where you quoted that from.
What about children playing some game they made up. They are certainly not producing art. Football isn't art, neither is poker. And no, games do not need a goal. That's why they are played.

I usually would but i just can't let someone say that wikipedia is always correct ... that is just plain wrong.

I agree that definition was off, but games do need a goal.

Whether you make it up yourself or not.

If you're just aimlessly doing things, that's not playing a game, that's just aimlessly doing things.

I do have reliable sources to support the claim. Wiki has almost been shut down in the past because of minor misinformation. Atm it is moderated and the sum of info it offers comes from a large amount of people (practically everyone) BUT after being moderated and checked with an expert's view. It's information distillation at it's finest.

The problem here is defining a goal. As soon as you claim that the goal in Minecraft is X, someone will disagree and say that for her the goal was to do Y. And she will be right.
I'm not saying that playing is mindlessly doing something, but that playing as an activity is something that can often not be pinned down to something definitive.
What might be playing for one person might look like mindlessly doing things to someone else.

Its totally a RPG and I love it.

As of 1.0 Minecraft has an actual goal that ends the game. People were actually complaining that Notch turned it from a sandbox to a sandbox with rpg elements. Still it is by no means an rpg without, a narrated/developed story and most importantly character development.

Personal goals are a different matter. Anyone can set personal goals in everything.

Many people couldn't care less about the "goal" Notch implemented with 1.0. They just want to build a huge castle.
Therefore it's all about personal goals. The implemented goals are the ones that don't really matter.

As for my opinion in Minecraft being an RPG:
No, I don't think it's an RPG, but it might become one.

We are talking about RPG definition here.
The point is what goals the game provides you with. What the game offers you.
It is a different matter if personal goals in this particular game are the essence of the game.
You can't define an RPG by claiming you have a personal goal in a game - therefore the game has a goal. If it hasn't a goal it just hasn't. If you want to set one that's fine and it might even be better than the actual goal of the game. But that does not make it a game which has a goal.

As i said before you can always set personal goals in everything. This doesn't mean they have an RPG element.
*Crude* example - i set a personal goal in the Sims to go to the bathroom and release my bladder. Does that make it a game with a goal or makes it more of an RPG? Not a chance.

That's because you think of the word "playing" in its colloquial meaning of "sorta doing something that's kind of fun".

Skyrim is an RPG... just not a very good one (that isn't to say it's a bad game - it's still great).

It would be a better RPG if it had:

• Proper character creation similar to Daggerfall
  
• Attributes back
  
• More skills
  
• Slower skill progression, with less emphasis on perks
  
• Slower progression within the gameworld (e.g climbing through the ranks of a faction gradually instead of becoming leader in a matter of hours)
  
• A lot more dialogue choices
  
• Much more dialogue in general
  
• Less level-scaling
  
• Less, or preferably no essential NPCs

I haven't read this whole thread, and I don't want to get embroiled in the argument, but I just wanted to say that it sounds like you've read Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. If you haven't, it sounds like you might find it interesting. He argues there, and probably elsewhere, that 'game' is a cluster concept, that activities commonly identified as games don't necessarily share any defining (necessary or sufficient) feature and instead share a family resemblance. It might be that 'RPGs' are a similar cluster concept, which would explain the divergent opinions here, and (in my mind at least) reveal the futility of arguing about the topic.

Edit: I think it's interesting what you say about Minecraft, too. I had been of the opinion that it's not an RPG, and I still don't think it is, but I think that it could very easily be played as an RPG.

I haven't read much Wittgenstein, but I'm sure he refers to Friedrich Schiller (On the Aesthetic Education of Man) in some ways, even though Schiller's arguments are mainly pedagogical (Thanks for the tip though).
Absolutely agree on the family resemblance concept and the fact that Minecraft can clearly be played as an RPG.
So that's where my ideas on "games" and "playing" come from (@bcs).



I was only talking about the definition of what a "game" is, not about RPGs specifically.

I'm not familiar with Schiller, but his work certainly looks interesting. Thanks for pointing me in its direction.

I hereby present you with the "Most stupid thread of the day award", in recognition of your incredible ability to necro discussions, start pointless threads and being completely unbiased. A shame you coudln't win the "Let's compare something to WW II and/or Hitler" award.

Congratulations.