What Defines a 'true' RPG?

[Ms Littlefish]

It's somewhat interesting to me that RPGs own that name sake, "role playing game," because absolute tons of games have that quality, or could be argued to. Many people would call Legend of Zelda games Adventure but what makes controlling Link less of a role play than controlling an RPG protagonist? In fact an RPG protagonist often has a lot of their personality, decision-making, and story clearly defined.

So taking the name sake literally would probably be a game where the in-game choices of your controllable character have a huge impact on other characters and the out come of the story (not that the Zelda example does that). They would have to evoke a strong feeling of pretending to be that character.

But taking lead from current examples, most of the RPGs I've played are defined by having parties of characters fight enemies through skills, level up, and much of the game happens on some sort of menu.

And honestly, I'm all in favor of bending the idea of what a game genre is.

 

[bunny-gypsy]

I have a preference for RPG games or RPG-like games where you can explore and are mostly alone. I don't enjoy too much micromanagement of huge parties, and I don't always like being forced to interact with party members, unless I really like them like in Dragon Age or Mass Effect.

I mean, I do like some parties, but I have trouble with big parties like Suikoden, Disgaea, Fire Emblem, or have lots of equipment management. I do like multiplayer co-op.

I also like games that have elements of RPG or are mix of different genres, so I like how games are more diverse.

So, games like Elder Scrolls games, Shin Megami Tensei main series, Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines, Borderlands, Phantasy Star Online, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Deus Ex/Deus Ex Human Revolution. Maybe Okami and Odin Sphere? I do like party-group games (like most RPGs and RPG Maker games) too, but the ones I enjoy the most I notice tend to be more "loner" kind of games (with a few AI companions or AI pets/monsters) or visual novel games with stat-raising elements alongside RPG elements.

 

[naruzeldamaster]

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?

For the Third Definition: A main characters actions (through interacting with other characters during cutscenes, quests etc) cause some kind of character growth as a person.

As an example, the main character (player character) in Persona 4 inspires the other party members to understand themselves more through the course of the social links. The choices the player is given can result in either a good ending or a bad ending for that characters social link. It's just one example of how to do it though. The characters grow as people in understanding themselves and eachother, mostly through interacting with the MC who's dialogues are more or less entirely chosen by the player.

The way to tell the illusion of choice, is if the full story is affected by the players choice. If it doesn't affect the future of the game's plot then it's an illusion of choice. (for example choosing which dungeon to complete first in Link To the Past is the illusion of choice, since dungeon completion doesn't change the plot other than what order you rescue the maidens in.)

For example, in fire emblem if you lose a soldier in battle, they die, and they die for good. Therefore the player's choice/mistakes in battle directly impacts the story in this case. Although it's kinda cheating to have the actual 'main characters' aside from the leader dieing to cause a game over, but that's beside the point. (For example if Chrom dies in Awakening you get a game over even though Robin is still alive.)

An RPG has you assume the role of a character(as a whole, not just during the dungeon/battle bits) rather than simply guiding them along a predetermined path.

A decent example of an RPG (even though it's not really labeled as one) would be Cathrine. The ending you get is determined by the choices you make throughout the game.

How this is executed is up to the game developers, and the presentation as well.

 

[xSparkZx]

Adventure games almost always has RPG elements in it. RP means "Roleplaying", which means you live in the character, acting in the game like he should be as his personality. Many games where you need to level up, collect loot and stuff are labeled as RPG, because YOU can create your character's personality by choosing a class, leveling up on your own way, doing quests on your own way. RPG didn't get the genrename "Roleplaying game" just for games where you need to level up and collect loot. Examples, look at the game "Thief" (newest). You may not believe it but it's an RPG. You don't level up, only collect loot to use on future missions, but you are "roleplaying" as the main character in the game. Another example is GTA V, it's an RPG, you don't level up but you're roleplaying as the three main characters. Many people think they understand the concept of "RPG", but they don't. And yes I'm studying the game industries. I don't wanna be a smartass or anything like that, I'm just trying to explain the real concept of RPG's. Cause it gets confused aaaall the tiiime.

 

[captainproton]

You do have to watch the "this game is an RPG because you play as...." thing, though. That definition basically encompasses every games except for Tetris. You play as Link, you play as Marth, you play as Donkey Kong and Duke Nukem and and some birds who are angry. You almost always control a character with a goal in mind, but not all of those games are RPGs.

 

[xSparkZx]

I know, but what I've learned is that Roleplaying is pretending you are someone. And in this case it's the main character. Unrealistically games like angry birds or donkey kong, you can't get in to that character and you won't start roleplaying as a monkey or a bird, I think we all concluded that xD

But on some point you're right, but theoretically that definition is the real one. It's just how it is. Leveling up and collecting loot is realistically not an attribute of Roleplaying am I right?

Definition of roleplaying: (And yes this is taken out of Wikipedia lol XD)

Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behaviour to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role. While the Oxford English Dictionary offers a definition of role-playing as "the changing of one's behaviour to fulfill a social role",[1] in the field of psychology, the term is used more loosely in four senses:

• To refer to the playing of roles generally such as in a theatre, or educational setting;
• To refer to taking a role of an existing character or person and acting it out with a partner taking someone else's role, often involving different genres of practice;
• To refer to a wide range of games including role-playing video game, play-by-mail games and more;
• To refer specifically to role-playing games.

 

[captainproton]

I don't know. Donkey Kong has always really spoken to me. I mean, if I had a nickel for every time I ran through the jungle, collecting bananas, jumping on crocodiles, wearing only a necktie...

 

[amerk]

Trying to find a "true" definition for rpg's is no different than trying to define a shooter as meaning a Galaga or Defender clone. Shooters have morphed from the single screen platform of atari to the side scrollers on the NES to the FPS we now have, and nobody gets upset whenever a new game comes out labeled as a shooter just because it doesn't adhere to some common rule that occurred in the early days of gaming.
 
As another poster stated, what many are trying to refer to as a true rpg is primarily the traditional turn-based 2d classics of old. Find a name for that style if you must (CTR - Classic Turn-based RPG could work) but understand that games have morphed quite a bit since then that a simple "rpg" label means nothing.
 
But I still am trying to figure out why this is even a problem. RPG Maker sites continue to adhere to the classic turn-based style of rpg games, some of which are very well done. Amaranth, Desura, and even Steam continue to release these kind of games all the time. Sure, they may no longer be quite as popular on consoles as they once were (the market has migrated more towards mobile, tablets, handhelds, and PC digitals), and as a result of this switch they may seem more of a niche these days, but there are still plenty of these kind of games to choose from, ranging from the classic 2d style to even 3d.
 
Either way, I've stopped trying to find labels for everything ever since the PS2. Instead, I pay more attention to reviews, ads, trailers, and LP's and make decisions based on that. Some of those games are lousy, and some are just as epic as any rpg I may have played on the SNES and PS1. In fact, whenever I look at a game on Steam, I almost never look at the listed category of genres, because they're so subjective anyways, and I may or may not agree with the labels. I only care if the game will interest me or not.
 
Edit:
 
Who remembers the Gameboy game called Sword of Hope? Now that was an odd mix if I ever saw one, but I'd still classify it as an rpg:
 
1. Single player control (Zelda or the first Dragon Quest game)
2. First person view (old computer styled rpg's)
3. Turn-based combat (typical rpg format, although mostly imitates the DQ battle format)
4. Levelling up by traditional means (again typical rpg format)
5. The map layout and character movement and action is reminiscent of Shadowgate, even as far as using similar sound and graphical effects. - Now I know why, Kemco was a publisher for the NES version of Shadowgate, and a developer for Sword of Hope.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jySVKGJX9X4
 
But you know what? It works well for an oldschool rpg, and the soundtrack was pretty epic for its time.