Do we really need to start a 'what is an RPG' debate here?

True. For myself I try to look at it from a old-school perspective. A shooter is a game in which you shoot, and a first-person-shooter a game in which you shoot from first-person. a older RPG is a game with a turnbased combat system however they were called a RPG. The combat system didn't define the game, it wasn't a turn-based tactic game. So apparantly being able to develop your character in different directions is the core of what makes a RPG. In other words the combat system wasn't the core value of such games, they were a means to an end: developing your character.

In the past this was done purely by stats and often in linear gameplay. So openworld gameplay, choices, etc aren't part of the core gameplay of a RPG. It is all about developing that character and not about the way how you do it. Adding openworld gameplay, choices, etc were just new ways to do so and are often used in modern RPG. Adding a real-time combat system also doesnt immediatly transforms a RPG into an action game. Oldschool RPG had turn-based combat mainly because there wasn't a good alternative.

When a game puts a lot of focus on the action as a means to develop your character than it is an action-RPG. Examples are Diablo and Sacred. These games are still about developing your character but they do so through the real-time combat not through choices (example). As soon as the action starts to overshadow the character development than it becomes an action game. In the case of ME2 this action is shooting, and it is often dicussed whether or not it is a TPS-RPG Hybrid (an action-RPG) or a TPS with RPG elements. Due to the insignificance of the character developed compared to the action I am personally leaning towards it being a TPS with RPG elements. Unlike Sacred the stats aren't important and the majority of the game is about nothing else than the action.

Stats / numbers don't automatically make an adventure game an RPG, you are correct about that. Look at something like GTA San Andreas - it uses stats in a very basic way to define the player-character and allow for progression. Hence why it's often considered an action-adventure game with RPG elements. Even something like Mass Effect 2 uses stats so sparingly to define characters that I would consider it to be a story-driven third-person shooter with RPG elements, rather than an RPG.


Video-games work differently. "18 strength" isn't simply a label to say that your character is strong. It determines what your character is capable of. For instance, will they be able to go and pick up that boulder but not the larger one behind it? Or another example - your character was exploring a dungeon and came across an old book written in an ancient language. Stats would determine whether your character possesses the knowledge to read and understand the book.

Ultimately, an RPG is about the character(s), not you, your skill, or the choices you make. Stats are essential for defining as much about the character as possible.

I think you've got things a little backwards here... RPGs started with table top games, where you CANNOT substitute stats with your imagination, as they dictate how the game is run. It just so happened that these RPGs were very simple to translate to PC gaming, as the simple formulas and chance systems could be directly ported into software. The original point of tabletop RPGs was that you played the role of a character, hence the name.

For some reason something has sort of been lost in translation, your character should define your character, not some numbers. For this reason I think Bethesda is making a great move by hiding the stats behind the gui, and trying to focus more on you use skills, you get better at those skills.

Whether you hide the stats or not, they have to be there in an RPG. That's the point i'm trying to get across. In a video game, your character cannot be properly defined without numbers.

Take the numbers out completely, and it becomes an adventure game (which, as i've said several times now, you can roleplay in). It's the confusion between the literal definition of roleplaying and the RPG video-game genre people seem to be getting stuck on.

Once someone said , you can't spell ignorance without IGN

The Term "RPG" is subjective.
Many people think story and immersion make an RPG.
Others think stats and progression make an RPG.
Both are correct and wrong.

What really makes an RPG is Good-looking armor!
I wish Beth Hired Blizzards artists.

Oh god no. Blizzard games have such a gaudy art style.

It doesn't become an adventure game, it seaze to be a video game, there's no video game which doesn't have numbers. There exist roleplaying games without numbers though, they instead have qualifiers. Numbers are just one way of expressing something.

Judgement armor.
/debate

:whistling: I was the one who opened this can of worms I guess, hehe.

What I meant, is that I find it odd that the author of the article seems to think 'RPG == game with focus on stats, like WoW'. While I and probably a lot of others don't consider WoW a real RPG, but more a MMOG. The game simply isn't immersive enough, with the lack of choices and the over-focus on getting better gear all the time. I think if you were to ask all the WoW players if they role play in WoW, a vast majority of them would say "No, I just play the game". While I think that if you were to ask the same question to TES players, the vast majority of them/us would say that it's nearly impossible NOT to role play in TES games.

Whether a person considers him/herself to be roleplaying is at least partially subjective ofcourse, but that doesn't make it meaningless.

1. he never said WoW defines "RPG", stop pulling things out of your ass. He said HE HAS NEVER BEEN TEMPTED TO PLAY WOW. Wow IS a well known (MMO)RPG, dont try to deny that
2. He says "I dont like RPGs in general, but Skyrim is enjoyable" not that anyone cares, but good for him. definately not an insult.


Jesus christ people, stop trying to make them sound bad with things they never said. I dont like IGN, but holy [censored], you guys are desperate. Has to be said, flame me now.

"Define" - really? Since when did our linguistic conventions dictate that all and only RPGs feature character definition and progression as a major feature?

People need to realise:

1) There's no settled definition of "RPG" - in the sense of a set of qualitative characteristics that (i) people look for and verify when they use the term "RPG", and (ii) that is common across most literal uses of "RPG". Different people will use the term slightly differently. This is an empirical claim which should be clearly true to anybody who has been around on these forums for a little while.

2) Is one usage of "RPG" correct? No. There are two reasons why you might think some usage deserves to be called the correct one. (a) Because it picks out the "real nature" of RPG-hood; (B) Because it facilitates communication.

2) (a) It's not the case that some usage of "RPG" picks out the real nature of RPG-hood. There's no such real nature to RPGs. "RPG" is a genre classification driven by our interests. Whether a game counts as an RPG is highly sensitive to conversational context, depending upon the games being compared to, the purposes of the conversation, the salient features of the game, and so on.

2) (B) It's not the case that different usage makes communication difficult. Differences in usage only appear when less paradigm cases are under discussion. But communication isn't likely to fail even here. To the extent that we use "RPG" differently, we can put our claims in more neutral terms.

I do not see any good reason to say that there is some privileged usage of "RPG". One person says that story and immersion matter; another says that character definition and progression matter. Both are right - in their own idiolect. There's no need to disagree here. Accepted terminology for genre classifications just aren't that fine-grained. Better just to realise that different people will use the term slightly differently. To the extent that there is a substantive debate to be had (and often there isn't), we can resort to neutral terminology.

That is the most perfect example why I don't like WoW's artstyle. That armor looks like something out of a cartoon, it looks childish and weird. Not something that I would want to see in a RPG that is about creating a believable world. In fact, I think armor like that is what motivated IGN to write this article in the first place. Thing is, I (a fan of RPG) wouldn't even want to play a game with armor like that.

Hahaha, you are waaay too fired up over a mere forum discussion! Chill out man.

1. He said: "I've never been tempted, not for one second, to actually play World of Warcraft. There are very few people in the world less qualified than me to write about RPGs." Obviously he sees WoW as a typical/real RPG. That's my point. I do not.

2. When did I say he was insulting? I like the article, I just think it's odd that it seems that when the author hears "RPG", he thinks "WoW". The only one insulting here is you. Grow up.

You define your character through his or her actions, choices, likes, dislikes, dreams, fears, and backstory.

If there is one thing I learned from Physics, Its that you cannot explain the universe in words. Only maths.

So let us define RPG's with maths... GO!

that doesnt mean he thinks thats a typical RPG, but a well known RPG. Learn the difference.

TES never was a typical RPG either, and I dare to say its not all that well known of a series. Ask people about what role playing games they know, they will say 'WoW' and sometimes 'Dungeons and Dragons'


I overreacted a bit because those threads keep popping up and they all insult the author for things he didnt say. Sorry. Lets not do this 'too cool to care' stuff, because you obviously do care about the discussion, you wouldnt answer otherwise

RPGs/e+M=7
Happy?

Mate.

You.

Are.

A.

LEGEND!

*Sorry for the typo. I only noticed your name here.


And suddenly, the convo is back at stats...



So... Before all the extended universe stuff appeared, Halo: Combat Evolved was an RPG, because I said "The Chief likes long strolls in the moon light, will always ambush before he makes a frontal assault, wants to go home and settle down, has a phobia of spiders and was married on Reach?"

Here is some internet math for you: universe =/= RPG.

It would have been very much possible to define 'RPG' in words had there been just one explanation. Game-genres define themselves by the gameplay: a shooter from a first-person perspective is a 'FPS'. Unfortunatly the games that are considered RPG offer compleetly different gameplay. Some have lots of stats, others very little. Some have real-time combat, others are turn-based. Some have dialogue choices, others do no. Some have a openworld, others a liniear. Etc.

There is a common ground on which the RPG genre is recognized but what elements are part of this common ground is compleetly subjective. We all have a different gaming background so the things mentioned above may or may not be relevant to our personal view of what makes a RPG. So something as untangible as the RPG genre can't be defined in a similar fashion as a FPS.

Exactly - now does the game keep track of this? If yes, that's an RPG. If not, and you have to pretend these characteristics are in the game - then it's not an RPG. Sure, loads of people here make-believe in their games, but I don't, plus that's not a good way to define an RPG. You have to judge a game by what the Devs have built, not what is built in your mind.

"The only reason this is worth mentioning is because I really, really don't like RPGs.

All that leveling up, those tiresome stats, all those dreary fantasy tropes, the endless tinkering with skills and items. Yawn!

Quasi-Medieval fantasy leaves me cold. When I trouble myself to read George R.R. Martin, my eyes roll at his absurd olde worlde lingo. I've never been tempted, not for one second, to actually play World of Warcraft. There are very few people in the world less qualified than me to write about RPGs. "

"The reason why I can't wait for Skyrim is that it is not an RPG, it's an escape-hatch to another world. All games, especially RPGs, offer this possibility of escape, but Skyrim's detail, realism and the sense of wonder it exudes makes it more tempting for non-RPGers than stat-heavy, graphically-limited rivals."

I think it's entirely justified to assume that he considers WoW a typical RPG. For him a RPG is: Levelling, stat-heavy, endless tinkering with skills and items. After that he uses WoW as an example. And to him, Skyrim is not a RPG. I think that's weird, MMORPG's are very different from RPG's without the MMO, so much that the RPG in MMORPG has nothing to do with the RPG in RPG. :whistling:

I'm not "too cool to care", I'm "too cool to get angry". I enjoy these discussions, but won't let them affect my mood negatively.




No, but yes if the Chief would actually do those things.

In the original RPG (paper & dice Dungeons & Dragons), the "game" didn't keep track of anything; the players and dungeon master did all the work. The math and dice-rolling were never considered part of the role-playing. Playing a role is all about stepping into your character's boots; speaking, thinking, and acting in-character.