makes sense but i always felt that Rpg -role play means that the player must play a role like in mmo(healer,tank,dps).I think it ties closer with the meaning of rpg compare to games like Final Fantasy VII where the player is just pretending to be some characters...and no fanboy dont bash me. Post Merge: [time]1263048577[/time] Of course good musics=/= Rpg(games like Metal Gear pwned lots of Rpg when it comes to music) Post Merge: [time]1263048753[/time] By the way, what does the little colored box near our names means?
So any developer that is brave enough can call their product as an Rpg?(how about modern warfare,halo,etc).Their developers are brave and pretty good but why are those game aren't Rpg?
RPG's have been a greatly abused name lately. i believe the term was meant to mean a game that you take the role a character or group of characters that follow a story. not necessarily one storyline. usually leveling is involved with the fighting and all that. just to add depth to the game. but a true to heart RPG is something that you get into like reading a book. you feel a connection to the character that your taking control of. You are taking their ROLE in the game/story. I hate so called RPG's that do not let a story develop. for a good game there has to be a developing story like acts in a play. not just go kill this guy go save this person. combined with a good music score that sets the mood of the story a game (a true RPG) is almost addictive. you cant pull yourself away from the story.
Zelda is not an RPG. As I mention in the article above, an RPG can be summed up in one sentence: "RPGs are games that have a (very) strong focus on visible, buildable statistics, and use battle as the primary means of stat building." If we're talking about the realm outside of video games, then the only real RPG is one that's actually roleplayed and uses a system similar to Dungeons and Dragons. It created the genre.
when i hear rpg, i think of stats, levels, weapons, hit points, mana/power points...stuff like that. so i can make myself come to the conclusion that games like zelda, pokemon, onimusha, mass effect, fallout 3, oblivon, etc... can be called rpg, because of the elements held in the battle system.
My take: RPG or Role Playing Game should be a game that lets you play a role the way you want to. The role of your character can be defined by many things such as the stats building and character interactions in the game. We can have an RPG with shooter element, or racing element. Or we can have a shooter or racing game with RPG element. I think the latters are not RPGs. But of course, different people have different ideas of what an RPG is due to their favourite aspects of the genre. I like RPG because it is a kind of game that primarily focuses on how long you have played it instead of the amount of "gaming skill" you have. So instead of improving your real skill at playing the game in order to get pass a certain difficult point, you would just need to spend more time with the game, and you would be able to get through it. This is why I don't enjoy the Zelda series that much. My in game time can only reward me in a limited way (heart containers and new weapons).
blasphemy! and btw, is everyone stupid here or what. An rpg is a game where you play a role hence where the name comes from. ROLE-PLAYING-GAME. it doesnt matter what style of game it is, if you play a role as a character then it has elements of rpg in it.
Funny, that's why I can't stand most RPGs; if I want to get by without leveling up a lot, let me! If I'm not gaining skill while I play then the game isn't doing a good job at entertaining me. Making some numbers go up isn't gaining skill. Consequently, my favorite RPGs are games that allow you to get by with a lower level, if you play well enough. Try playing through Golden Sun without fighting anything but bosses! It's fun. I want to play through Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance with just Ike, too. To be honest, RPGs as a whole are easy compared to other genres; in almost every RPG it's just a matter of leveling up in order to kick ass. In action or adventure games, you have to use raw skill, earned through trial and error, dumb luck, and/or years of playing games.
Games these days are becoming harder and harder to define. Take Mass Effect 2 for example, it is hard to say if it is an RPG or a shooter. It's got both element in it, and apparently they are both very well done.
Deus Ex anyone? My 2 cents: RPGs (on the mighty realm of video gaming) are defined by the ability to take decisions. If I can make a decision, no matter how limited, that will alter the storyline accordingly, I'm playing MY role in the story, thus I'm role playing. It has nothing to do with absolute freedom (like in Fallout 3 or just about any game from Beth Soft) stats and leveling up (any "RPG" from japan) *at all*, tho customization is also welcome, but not a must. I truly don't know how things like those japanese "turn based command action" games became known as "RPGs" (I call 'em jRPGs for the sake of not being executed in public or something), or those strategy games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre, since there's usually no role playing to be done. Altho the combat in ME2 is played like a shooter, the focus is still on how your decisions play out in the story, thus it's an RPG. That's all IMHO tho.
Japanese RPGs originated from western RPGs, but they are so different from western RPGs. From my experience, the role playing in jRPGs are usually done through character customizations, and that's pretty much it. Party configuration doesn't counts as role playing. It's is more like using strategies.
Altho this IS true, and I'm well aware of it, I don't accept it. It's just stupid. Using that as a basis, one could say that action games like Devil May Cry are RPGs due to the customizations and stuff. That's just bloody nonsense IMO.