What Defines a 'true' RPG?

[naruzeldamaster]

Okay, am I the only one consistantly frustrated with Game companies labeling a game as an RPG just because it has a level up system? Or some other Element that most RPG's have in them? You know, like an emo anime eyed teenager with spiky hair?

To me, most games labeled as an RPG aren't really an RPG. 

For example, you can act out roleplays in most MMOs, but that doesn't make them an RPG.

You can level up and upgrade your skill trees in Monster Hunter Ultimate, but that doesn't make it an RPG.

True RPG's have something unique about them that separates them apart from other gaming categories. The problem is, game developers and gamers have yet to make a solid decision on what the guidelines of a fully fledged RPG game really are.

You can look at a game labeled as a Survival Horror and say 'yup that's survival horror alright'

You can look at a first person shooter game and say "yup, that's definitely an FPS broseph!"

So, the random question of awesome today is, what makes you look at a game, and makes you think 'yup, that's a role playing game!' 

I should note, it doesn't have to be classified as an RPG on the package, what makes you consider a game to be an RPG despite the fact that it's labled that or not.

DISCUSS OR THE MIGHTY CTHULHU WILL DEVOUR YOUR SOUL >=3 

 

[EternalShadow]

For me, what makes an RPG is quests and a level-up system, a way to grow your character in a linear or nonlinear fashion. That's it, really.

 

[Matseb2611]

For me it's usually if it has a way to grow your character, so that the way he/she is at the end is considerably stronger than how they were at the start, and not only because they're carrying more weapons (as is common in non-RPGs).

Most times I see it as a spectrum. Some games aren't RPGs, but they might have RPG elements. If RPG elements are the focus of the gameplay, then I'd classify it as an RPG. If they're just there to add some spice to the game, then it's not an RPG.

 

[xSparkZx]

A computer role-playing game or simply CRPG or RPG is a computer game genre. Characteristic of RPGs is that the player steps in the shoes of a character or group of characters (party), and that the development of those characters is an essential part of the game. That's an RPG.

 

[Warpmind]

Yeah; if character building by internal abilities is one of the core aspects of the game - levels, added abilities, increased stats, that sort of thing - it's an RPG; Skyrim, Deus Ex, the Final Fantasy series, etc. as examples.. If the character only grows stronger through gear, not so much; the Metroid series, most military FPS games, etc.

 

[cabfe]

That could be a long thread...

No one has ever been able to provide a consensual definition of what is a c-RPG and what is not.

I guess the answer is: the one that looks like it to you.

 

[Alexander Amnell]

You can look at a game labeled as a Survival Horror and say 'yup that's survival horror alright'

You can look at a first person shooter game and say "yup, that's definitely an FPS broseph!"

   This isn't always true either anymore, games can have so many variations to them and blend genres so well that you can get a game that looks like a survival horror game, plays like an fps and yet follows every common tenet of character development/story relativity needed to be declared an rpg to boot. Case and point; Dying Light. I'd rather just try everything that looks appealing than worry about what niche the game is supposed to fit into, to many games can legitimately fit multiple genres at once to try to.

 

[amerk]

I've always considered the earlier Zelda games and Metal Gear games from NES a type of action rpg. You explored your surroundings, gained stats, found equipment and items, and drove the story the further along you went.

These have all sort of changed as time went on, becoming more adventure and shooters in style, with some minor rpg elements.

But you can't really say what's a true rpg without omitting some other genres. For example, Secret of Mana as about a true rpg as you can get, but it's action based versus turn-based. And a game like Eye of the Beholder may be as far removed from the traditional standard (at that time) but still has dungeon crawling and stat building.

If you're asking what defines a true turn-based rpg with story and exploration, that'd be easier to identify with. But the best way I typically consider an rpg is by the trailers, screenshots, game blogs, comments, reviews, and even footage of the game. Only then will I consider it an rpg worth my time or not.

 

[captainproton]

For me, an RPG is defined not by levelling or even by the combat system.

In a true RPG video game, you have a group of characters you control, each with their own traits and abilities. Role-Playing Games were originally pen-and-paper games played by a group of people, each ROLE-PLAYING as a different character. MMO's like WoW are the most analogous video games to this type of gaming experience, despite those people who refuse to party up with other players. You have a character with unique traits and abilities, you behave in the game world how that person would behave.

before the internet became a Thing, video game RPGs were single-player affairs, but you did at least have multiple characters to control, and you got a taste of the old multiplayer days.

How does that compare to a lot of games now calling themselves RPGs?

Most games claiming the label are really Adventure games. Legend of Zelda, Kingdom Hearts, Assassin's Creed--these are Adventure games, not RPGs. You explore, collect loot, level up, etc, but you control only a single character.

An RPG doesn't necessarily need a turn-based system. Secret Of Mana was an RPG with an active battle system. You pressed Y a ring popped up and you chose your spells and items, then ran around to attack your enemy. Yet you had distinct characters with unique skills and personalities.

 

[bunny-gypsy]

I think it's because nowadays games can have elements of RPG, not necessarily are full-on RPG games. I think some games mix a few different elements of different genres. Kind of how some books can have a mix of genres, too. 

For me, RPGs are games in which characters are developed by internal stats. A story is not always the main focus, because some RPGs are more dungeon/rogue games, even if they have some story elements in them. 

For me, an RPG is defined not by levelling or even by the combat system.
In a true RPG video game, you have a group of characters you control, each with their own traits and abilities. Role-Playing Games were originally pen-and-paper games played by a group of people, each ROLE-PLAYING as a different character. MMO's like WoW are the most analogous video games to this type of gaming experience, despite those people who refuse to party up with other players. You have a character with unique traits and abilities, you behave in the game world how that person would behave.
before the internet became a Thing, video game RPGs were single-player affairs, but you did at least have multiple characters to control, and you got a taste of the old multiplayer days.
How does that compare to a lot of games now calling themselves RPGs?
Most games claiming the label are really Adventure games. Legend of Zelda, Kingdom Hearts, Assassin's Creed--these are Adventure games, not RPGs. You explore, collect loot, level up, etc, but you control only a single character.
An RPG doesn't necessarily need a turn-based system. Secret Of Mana was an RPG with an active battle system. You pressed Y a ring popped up and you chose your spells and items, then ran around to attack your enemy. Yet you had distinct characters with unique skills and personalities.

What about Elder Scrolls games (Arena; Daggerfall; Morrowind; Oblivion; Skyrim)? You usually controlled one character (your Avatar) in those games, last time I checked and played, lol.

Or are those not considered RPGs?

 

[Warpmind]

Yeah, the "multi-character" requirement is a bit absurd. If memory serves, the Ultima series, as well, only has a single player character.

 

[bunny-gypsy]

Yeah, the "multi-character" requirement is a bit absurd. If memory serves, the Ultima series, as well, only has a single player character.

Perhaps the Elder Scrolls games are an exception to the rule? 

Oh, I forgot about Phantasy Star Online games: Though you can play multiplayer with other people, you can play by yourself. I've solo-ed a few times in some of them.

Oh, what about Borderlands? Well, I guess they're sort of RPG-like or RPG-elements, but I guess they're more shooters with RPG elements that depend on equipment stats. Though your character does level up, and you have skill trees, too...Hmm...

 

[Wavelength]

For me, it's an emphasis on characters that defines an RPG.

This emphasis can come in a lot of different forms, from individual customization mechanics to character-driven narrative focus to gameplay built around slice-of-life... but if it fulfills the focus on characters as much or more than it fills other genres' core aesthetics, I have no problem calling it an RPG.

 

[amerk]

Most games claiming the label are really Adventure games. Legend of Zelda, Kingdom Hearts, Assassin's Creed--these are Adventure games, not RPGs. You explore, collect loot, level up, etc, but you control only a single character.

So by your definition then, the very first Dragon Warrior game on the NES wasn't an rpg because you only controlled one character.

 

[naruzeldamaster]

I think we're going to have to find a way to think of what defines an RPG, though that in and of itself is a task to be considerably difficult. What I consider an RPG is as follows.

1: Choices that directly impact the story, outside of sidequests. 

In other words, the game must at least once or more give the player a decision to make; that decision needs to be finite and have significant or at least very notable impact on the story.

This I feel is the core rule that several games claiming to be RPG's actually lack, some do give the player choices (Mass Effect for example) but they don't change very much of the actual story itself. Most of the time the really important decisions are saved for endgame and going down certain paths can lead to multiple endings for example. Persona games are pretty good at this, although it really only boils down to which ending you get, that's still a very direct impact on the story. Tales of Xillia 2 tried a little too hard with it's execution, but it's a decent example of what I mean.

2: Character development/growth, outside leveling up etc

What I mean is, growing as a character in-game is a step in the right direction, but how much do your decisions throughout the course of the game impact the character as a person, or the way other characters view that character as a person? How different are they from when the story started than they are at the very end? If the players decisions don't directly affect this process it's not a true RPG. You're not truly controlling the character, simply guiding them along a pre-set path. Most of the persona games are great at this.

3: The main characters actions(note, I mean the main character, which isn't always the playable character) should drastically influence the characters around them, especially party members. Working together will encourage character growth, and if that's a result of the player's actions (be it through accepting/completing certain sidequests or selecting certain options while viewing optional skits etc) then that's all the better. Tales of Xillia 2 is a fine example of this! Xenoblade Chronicles is also worth mentioning.

If a game doesn't have at least one of these things, to me it's not really an 'rpg' since you're not really playing the role of a character; rather you're simply acting out a script with the illusion of free control. Not that this is bad mind you, a lot of Games that claim to be an RPG at least have one of these things, but not all of them. Back in the SNES days, it was excusable, but now that the medium has evolved into what it is today, we gamers have come to expect a lot more, even from the classic silent protagonist!

 

[CzarSquid]

When someone says a true RPG I think of Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior and Pokemon. Games with not much difficulty, lots of hours of gameplay, turn based combat, interactions with other NPCs, exploration, and enjoying the story the game has given to you. The more a game is like this the more I can say they are "true RPGs".

However, I understand where you are coming from naruzeldamaster. It feels like as time moves forward the genre of RPGs have been diluted and merged with every kind of game imaginable. I actually asked this questions about Roguelikes on another forum which is suffering from a similar problem from being overused. The answer I got was not to change what people said about those games (you can't stop them). Rather find words that everyone can agree to describe the games. It should be simple and clear without making the orignal name feel like it's lesser. The connotation of 'true rpg' implies that all the other games that are not 'true rpgs' and may be mistaken as an offense. Would you like your favorite game get called something lesser just because it didn't fit the definition of someone's words? I know I don't.

For my example in the beginning, instead of calling them 'true RPGs' call them Classic/Traditional RPGs. That way more people understand where you are coming from. Words change meanings as time moves forward. Just accept you can't change people's definitions of it and find ways to find a common ground.

Labels are nice and all but there is always a gem to be found in all genres of games. Ironically, I actually don't like most traditional RPGs and here I am making RPGmaker games.

 

[Another Ned]

If a game is fun to me, I don't care about much else. No matter the genre (though it's always useful to be aware of the conventions of the genre you're working in).
I find it to be too limiting to think in terms of "true" and "false". Plus, everybody seems to have their own definition anyways. : D Which is great, actually.

I remember reading an article on Gamasutra some years ago about RPG Genres – dividing RPGs into different subgenres seems to me a bit less-limiting than searching for the one true recipe. I went diving into the depths of my bookmarks and found it here: Article on RPG Genres (I found it to be an interesting read and maybe someone else will, too)

 

[cabfe]

(...)

Most games claiming the label are really Adventure games. Legend of Zelda, Kingdom Hearts, Assassin's Creed--these are Adventure games, not RPGs. You explore, collect loot, level up, etc, but you control only a single character.

(...).

Oh no, please. It's already a hard time defining a RPG, don't add to the confusion

These games have nothing in common with an Adventure game.

They can be called Action-Adventure games (at least Assassin's Creed, never played the others), but this is a completely different genre despite both having the word adventure in it.

 

[bunny-gypsy]

I think we're going to have to find a way to think of what defines an RPG, though that in and of itself is a task to be considerably difficult. What I consider an RPG is as follows.

1: Choices that directly impact the story, outside of sidequests.

In other words, the game must at least once or more give the player a decision to make; that decision needs to be finite and have significant or at least very notable impact on the story.

This I feel is the core rule that several games claiming to be RPG's actually lack, some do give the player choices (Mass Effect for example) but they don't change very much of the actual story itself. Most of the time the really important decisions are saved for endgame and going down certain paths can lead to multiple endings for example. Persona games are pretty good at this, although it really only boils down to which ending you get, that's still a very direct impact on the story. Tales of Xillia 2 tried a little too hard with it's execution, but it's a decent example of what I mean.

2: Character development/growth, outside leveling up etc

What I mean is, growing as a character in-game is a step in the right direction, but how much do your decisions throughout the course of the game impact the character as a person, or the way other characters view that character as a person? How different are they from when the story started than they are at the very end? If the players decisions don't directly affect this process it's not a true RPG. You're not truly controlling the character, simply guiding them along a pre-set path. Most of the persona games are great at this.

3: The main characters actions(note, I mean the main character, which isn't always the playable character) should drastically influence the characters around them, especially party members. Working together will encourage character growth, and if that's a result of the player's actions (be it through accepting/completing certain sidequests or selecting certain options while viewing optional skits etc) then that's all the better. Tales of Xillia 2 is a fine example of this! Xenoblade Chronicles is also worth mentioning.

If a game doesn't have at least one of these things, to me it's not really an 'rpg' since you're not really playing the role of a character; rather you're simply acting out a script with the illusion of free control. Not that this is bad mind you, a lot of Games that claim to be an RPG at least have one of these things, but not all of them. Back in the SNES days, it was excusable, but now that the medium has evolved into what it is today, we gamers have come to expect a lot more, even from the classic silent protagonist!

Um...most JRPGs (the ones I've played or know about) were/are pretty linear, so you're excluding quite a few of them with your first definition about choices affecting the storyline. It's why I sometimes don't play certain JRPGs. (If I don't like the storyline or characters, for example.) Some games including RPGs only give an illusion of choice, or the choices don't matter, etc.

Unless you're talking about customizing your party?

And I don't understand your third definition. In what ways can a main character affect the other characters? Are you talking about story-wise?

What about very fight-intensive games with only a basic plot like the original Shin Megami Tensei games series (not Persona), or Pokemon? Do they fit any of your definitions?

 

[captainproton]

Okay, you know what? I will fully admit that the multi-character party as a requirement is a bit limiting, but to me, it's the best way for a single player to emulate the experience of the old pen-and-paper days. Final Fantasy, Secret of Mana, Dragon Quest, Lufia--these definitely fall into the "true" RPG category. But obviously, I admit, it shouldn't be THE defining factor.

Wavelength and Naruzeldamaster brought up the point of an RPG being a character-driven experience, where choices affect the flow of the story. I totally agree with this.

Zelda, to me, is still an adventure game. They're largely about going from point A to point B, while exploring everything in between. However, the complexity of entries like OoT and MM, due to the time-travel elements, do bring in the Choices Matter aspect.

Kingdom Hearts? It does have a rich story, and a lot of RPG elements, but actual gameplay is more like a reflexes-driven Action Platformer. There really aren't any choices to be made and exploration is mostly limited to "hey, there's a chest up there." Puzzles are pretty much non-existent. And even though you're sometimes accompanied by Donald and Goofy, they're just sort of there, completely controlled by the AI.

AC? Okay, my experience with this game is pretty limited, admittedly, so maybe it's more of an RPG than I thought.

Ultima completely slipped my mind, as did DW, and yeah, I'd call those RPGs.

Same goes for games like Fable, Borderlands and Elder Scrolls.

So, yeah, I can totally admit to being wrong about the multi-character parties being a defining characteristic. I blame Daylight Savings sleep depravation.