What's the difference between RPG vs Non-RPG

[tonytechno]

like the title says, explain please.

 

[Shion Kreth]

I'm assuming they're defining rpg as turn-based/active time battle systems where you're choosing commands like fight and magic, then non-rpg is everything else; adventure, horror, platforming, shooting, etc.

 

[tonytechno]

i'm just wondering if RPG's have to have a story in it, since RPG = role-playing game. and RPG's usually have a lot of story to them.

 

[kiedisticelixer]

My vision of what RPG means differs from Shion Kreth's.

For me, a RPG is a lot of things. Could be a turn-based, adventure, solving crimes, horror... RPG for me stands as "you play as this character and you help him accomplish this". Can also be a platformer such as Mario games.

Non a rpg: Cooking Mama, space invaders, first person shooter... Games where the idea of role-playing is the least important. Of course we aren't roleplaying and inmerssed as a littler girl in Cooking Mama, nor in Call of Duty is the RPG factor very important (although persistent in its history mode I guess?)

 

[tonytechno]

thanks for the responses guys or girls.

 

[Mouser]

RPG to me means "you" are represented as some avatar in game that you control while having some sense of 'progression' and being at least a little more in depth than an arcade game (though some of those were RPG's...).

It could be a FPS, a HOPA, an 'old school' jRPG, just about anything honestly.

Mass Effect, Dire Grove, Myst, Syberia, Final Fantasy (take your pick), Harvest Moon (again, take your pick), Baldur's Gate, Zelda (any but maybe the second) are all RPG's to me. So are sandbox games like X3:TC (again, pretty much all the X series) and Morrowind. I'd name some FPS but I really don't play much of those so couldn't tell you. I'm sure there are some though.

Space Invaders? Donkey Kong? Not so much, though the later Mario/Luigi titles are a bit more murky.

 

[Julien Brightside]

I kinda think the difference is that in a RPG, you ARE the character, while in non RPGs you CONTROL the character.

 

[Narcissus]

I always find the idea of defining an RPG tricky. An FPS is rather easier, since it's name is a very easy to apply definition. Is the game in first person? If yes, is there shooting? If yes again, it's an FPS. However, when we get to an RPG, the name isn't quite as helpful, and at times feels more like a sub category. If someone were to define a Role Playing Game based on name alone, some might believe that the story is placed at the center, and that the player is playing a particular role in the story through choices.Yet this is not always the case (in fact, it is arguable less common than the usual alternative). Most of the RPGs people play often have the main character's actions and personality predetermined, and on occasion, may offer a small choice to affect the game, if there are any choices in terms of story at all. If that is what an RPG is, than how is it different from so many other genres? Almost any big games have the player play a pre-made story with no say on what goes on, aside from the occasional choice. Are they also all called RPGs? What about games that do offer plenty of choices that genuinely affect the story? I have never heard anyone call a game like Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which has a story with many different choices, or Shadow the Hedgehog,a game where choosing what objective to follow is needed in order to progress, an RPG. Neither are the action/adventure/interactive novel series games made by TellTale, such as the Walking Dead or the Wolf Among Us ever called an RPG, despite allowing the player to actually role-play.

Others would define it by other marks that are within the game, such as turn-based battles, or playable characters that have statistics that can be modified via leveling up/equipment/status effects/etc... But we also have a problem here as well. For the turn based argument, there are turn-based strategy games, such as the civilization series, which also include player choices in constructing a civilization, but these games are not called RPG games either. Furthermore, many RPGs, especially in modern times, do not use turn-based combat, such as the modern Final Fantasy games and all the kingdom heart games. The last and most difficult argument I have seem is the leveling up/equipment/status effects/etc... argument. This seems to be the most commonly accepted usage of the title RPG, but I still think it isn't a very clear definition. Almost all games involve some statistics in one way or another, and many of those give players the opportunity to modify said statistics. An FPS can be said to do this through using different guns, which have different "stats" for the player. Some newer FPS games even have a leveling system, but are not called RPGs. Some fighting games, such as Super Smash Bros. Brawl, allow the player to modify stats for each character via stickers, and some fighting games (in particular, those from Arskys works such as Blazblue, Guilty Gear, and the Atlus partnered Persona Arena games) allow each player to inflict status affects on each other, but these are both called fighting games and not RPGs.

While most people tend to go with the statistical arguement, I think the actual definition for such a genre is a lot more blurred and it's really a matter of interpretation.

 

[amerk]

Here is what I wrote at VXAN on a similar topic. Note, everybody is going to have their own ideas:

Any game can be considered a role playing of sort, especially if it includes exploration, looting, story, and item/equipment upgrades.

While they've changed considerably over the years, the Metal Gear games and Zelda games felt more like action rpg's on the NES. And essentially, that's what they are, action rpg's that take on a different style of game play compared to traditional rpg's. Even dungeon crawlers are a type of rpg that's usually less about story. When people say "rpg" more than likely they are talking about the traditional games, though:

1. Level increase

2. Grind for Gold and XP and item drops.

3. Dungeons, and Side Quests, and Towns... oh, my!

4. Story

5. Turn-based battles - however, said battles can have an ATB if desired, implement combo attacks like Xenogears, be side view or front view. Tactical battles also somewhat fit in the traditional means of an rpg, but are usually defined as "Tactical RPG".

6. Item/Equipment upgrades.

7. Stats or some form of character progression.

8. Spells learned through leveling up, purchasing, or skill trees.

If your game includes at least half of these, I'd consider it an rpg, although it may not be one in the sense of how traditional rpg's are viewed. Decide what kind of an rpg it is rather than just the generic "rpg" name. So if it's an FPS, that includes gaining EXP and gold from shoot outs, a good story, plenty of exploration, buying/upgrading, I'd call it an FPS RPG, or even an FP RPG if the shooting elements can be substituted with melee attacks.

 

 

[Shion Kreth]

Fps and platformer games are not roleplaying games; it is not meant literally, the original 'rpg's involved making, naming and controlling a party of adventurers who had no personality and there was pretty much no story(I'm talking western pc rpgs, based off d&d, predating japanese console rpgs). Trust me, for the competition they are referring to turn-based battles and your characters' progressing statistically rather than the player improving through pattern learning/reflexes(adventure/horror/mystery I couldn't say for certain, but I'd classify them as non-rpgs as well unless they contained those aforementioned rpg elements).

 

While most people tend to go with the statistical arguement, I think the actual definition for such a genre is a lot more blurred and it's really a matter of interpretation.

 

You are correct in that there is no hard line definition for any genre period, just shared understandings of what it means, however in this instance people are going to be judging what is or isn't.