What Is and ISNT an rpg

If we look back at the previous posts made, most people have been focusing on one aspect and focusing in on that facet of gameplay, and determining that as the basis for RPG/not. Some people, like tevak, have stated something similar to "I just said that leveling up isnt the ONLY one but the most fundamental one," saying that there is more than the one aspect addressed in the above post. Let's analyze a larger portion of these, shall we?

A good start. In my opinion, hits most of the basic points. You can either control and manage one character, or a party, who gain experience, level up, gain attributes/stats in some sort of manageable system, as well as the possibility of changing equipment.
The story/plot aspect, however, is where it gets tricky. True, a good RPG would have a "somewhat interesting story." For purposes of this discussion, I'll assume a decent plot-driven video game has a decent story to go with it. Hence, a feature RPGs have, but not a clarifying one.

While these are not requirements, this does touch upon a basic formula that some games/series seem to use. Introduction of character, often inexperienced in battle/magic/heroism/etc., thus creating a need for leveling up, experience points, and increasingly complex and challenging gameplay and encounters. Grinding is often a large factor of RPGs, but only if we assume the EXP/leveling factor as a major component, and assuming a challenging game requiring extra play outside the storyline. Also, this is the first time a specific antagonist is mentioned. I congratulate this, for it is true that many RPGs, mostly what I consider to be some of the best, feature a specific person/deity/entity/being/etc. to combat. It doesn't have to be this way, but feels a lot better than a general "save the world because of....impending natural disaster" or similar would.

The first description may apply well to any sort of RPG, true, and I believe this statement covers the Wikipedia quote about tabletop roleplaying games very well. The second I feel applies more often to RPG video games (as this is the focus of our discussion). Again we see a focus on fighting monsters, but this time it mentions random encounter. This is another staple of RPGs, and also points toward a final boss, showing again the singular antagonist.

All of this is true. I believe some of us have come to a bit of a disagreement on what "gameplay" that constitutes and (according to the above) defines an RPG is.
Whether playing focused on a singular character, or focused on a party, it is true that there is a roleplaying element involved (shocker!). If we were to stop here, then yes, a vast majority of video games would be RPGs. However, the gameplay difference seems to involve one or more of the following:
Random encounters
Turn-based combat of some sort (ATB-style included)
EXP/Leveling
Stats, and the allocation thereof
Antagonist(s?)
Party management system
Manageable skills, equipment, inventory, etc

Now, can we all agree that the more of these qualities a game has, the more "RPG-esque" it is?

To hit closer to the original intent of this thread, yes, I agree Zelda is an action-adventure with possibly a few RPG elements, most Final Fantasy games can be used as a standard of comparison for this (with the exception of the FFCC's and a few others), and as was said earlier, this only matters for purposes of discussion, because:

 

tsumi to batsu 2 is an rpg/shooter

 

I belive thats its more easy to read the box where your game came in.

 

Hmmm....IMO an RPG is a game with all that has been said,but not everything said is not an RPG for eample if you refer to wiki you will discover that megaman sf is an RPG while LoZ is not(action adventure only.)

Smartest thing ever posted

 

Here's one Final Fantasy Dissidia it has been claimed as a 3D Fighting/RPG. Fighting I can see, but RPG? not really, yes you gain exp and the usual rpg element type items, but its no more of an rpg than I think it was one of the Soul Caliber games that had an "adventure mode" just with a little more depth.

But its not too bad I like what I have played of it so far.

 

guess we reach a point then.

RPG has more than one concept.

If we take a realy classic RPG (like FFVI, for exemple) and change something... like the battle systen.
Lets trade the tradicinal ATB systen for a fighting game... like Summon Night for GBA.

So now our little hack room of FFVI isnt an RPG anymore?


I say there is no point wasting time discussin that. RPG has a lot of features that together create the genre "RPG". Just because we remove some of these features, doesnt mean the game isnt an RPG anymore.

Thats why most games nowadays are multi-genre. And I am glad about that.
So yes, we can say Dissidia FF is a Fighting/RPG of sorts.

 

is supermario 64 an rpg or jumping platform? the more stars you get the stronger you are, if you get 120 stars you have the ability of taking no damage from high places.

 

False, on the latter. I've gotten 120 stars and you'll get your ass kicked if you jump off the roof where Yoshi is.

It is a jumping platform. You are not technically stronger with each star, you just gain new areas.

I recently learned that platform games mean that you jump from platform to platform. I had always thought it was "console specific" since most of the platformers were console specific, namely Nintendo.

 

how about... tales of symphonia? i thought it was a hack and slash w/ magic

 

IMO, the Tales series would be a good choice for an Action/RPG hybrid classification. Most people think some sort of turn-based combat in an RPG; the battle style that games like Star Ocean and Tales have don't follow this traditional pattern. However, there are still many major elements of RPG gameplay in these games, like equipable weapons, skills, attributes and abilities gained or powered up through EXP leveling...Hack 'n Slash w/magic would describe the battle style alright, but the game overall is the tricky part

 

To the person who says anything can be determined genre through Wikipedia: Anyone, can post ANY THING on Wikipedia. They only check the relevance of things far more important than megaman star force. Name 4 rpg elements of star force/ battle network. Nearly all rpg elements can be cited through krystallus' post.

 

... oh well, it never hurts to ask

 

This is a question that any hardcore gamer asks him or herself. It's important to keep in mind that taking a genre's definition literally or oversimplifying the experience of a game is not helpful to one's understanding or a conversation about it. They're two extremes, and extremes only help a discussion spiral into oblivion.

Getting straight to the point, we need to look at games considered RPGs and understand what unifies them. Look past the division between turn-based and real-time, setting, and story. What ties them all together? If you ask me, it's the way they play. Like other genres, they are defined by the style of gameplay. For most RPGs, it's the concept of a "battle system". Not the fact that there are stats. Why? Because every game, at its core, has statistics of some sort. Link may not have HP in Zelda, but his magic meter and hearts are determined through numbers that are graphically parsed. So maybe RPGs are a bit different by deliberately making the stats visually apparent. Even that's not enough, though. Which kinds of stats, and what effects do they have in the overall game design? Those are the questions to consider. RPGs tend to have a play style that emphasizes stats above all else. For example, you can run through a lot of action games with the weakest or "lowest level" weapons or gear. It's made possible because many action games rely more on reflexes and technical skill with the game than the level of their weapons. They aren't RPGs because they possess those levels; they just make for deeper action games. So it seems safe to say that RPGs are games that have a (very) strong focus on visible, buildable statistics, and use battle as the primary means of stat building.

What else is apparent in the gameplay of an RPG that is different enough from other genres to set it apart? That's the way you need to think in order to answer the question.

</2cents>

 

It is difficult to define.
In my opinion, every game that has you playing a character with a storyline is an RPG.

 

LD64: That definition is too broad, if you ask me. Genres are used to classify styles of games, and under your definition, practically every game is an RPG. Halo, CoD, Mario, Metroid, GTA, Heavenly Sword, even LittleBigPlanet can be considered RPGs by your definition because you play a character and play through a storyline.

Can you honestly say any of the above (barring MAYBE GTA San Andreas thanks to the huge number of stats) are RPGs?

IMO in order they're FPS, FPS, Platformer, Action/Adventure, Sandbox/Action, Action/Adventure, and Action/Platformer.

 

That is what I meant. A game where you play as a character with a storyline is an RPG.

 

Ld64, we are talking about crpgs. Console rpgs. the Genre. not the concept.

 

Classifying every game as an RPG like that defeats the point of the genre. Under that definition, "RPG" becomes a meaningless, moot abbreviation.

 

RPG is a game which your character grow from zero to hero, ussually by leveling up and things similiar to that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game_%28video_games%29

 

zero to hero is a huge stereotype or cliche. Besides, most games do that. Is ty the tasmanian tiger an rpg? no.