This thread is intended to consolidate discussion on this issue of the validity of the term RPG as it is applied to most console games. Note that this is a debate thread, so posting material that is not valid in a debate will be considered grounds for mockery.

My assertion: The term "role-playing game" or "RPG" as it is commonly used in reference to electronic media is wildly inaccurate. Many games labeled as such (such as the Final Fantasy series) are not role-playing games at at all; rather, they are action/adventure games.


Role-playing game (origins)

The first commerically available role-playing game, as most people probably know, was Dungeons & Dragons, which was released in 1974. This marked the first recorded use of the term. The game's mechanics were modeled after a pre-existing miniatures wargame called Chainmail, which was written by the same people.

This is the first proof that the "role-playing game" designation is not meant to be applied to many of the games it is currently attached to. The game mechanics commonly associated with RPGs actually originated in an earlier genre. This shows that the only thing that was different about the original RPGs was the actual role-playing element, which is a player's free-form characterization of their chosen role.

Many games that are currently identified as RPGs use completely predefined characters, which should immediately disqualify them from receiving the designation. Without the single defining characteristic mentioned above, a game cannot, by historical standards, be called a role-playing game.


Ambiguation

The earliest recognized console RPG (cRPG) was, as a matter of fact, a licensed Dungeons & Dragons title called Treasure of Tarmin that was released in 1982. However, that game was not labeled as a role-playing game at the time, and had never been assigned a genre label by its creators. That liberty was taken years later, although who first assigned the designation is unclear.

The first cRPG to actually be labeled as an RPG was the original Dragon Quest. It was placed under that genre due to some of the similarities it shared with D&D, as well as other role-playing games. However, the only similarities were in elements that were taken from the aforementioned wargames. The elements that actually warranted the creation of the RPG title were not present in any form.

The success of Enix's Dragon Quest game�as well as subsequent sequels�inspired other game makers to play follow-the-leader and assign the label to their own games, as well as retroactively assign erroneous labels to games that previously did not need a genre distinction due to the simplistic nature of games at the time of their creation. The Japanese culture, having little grasp at the time of the original concept of role-playing games, adopted the misnomer out of pure ignorance, and the spread of their games has resulted in the popularization of the error globally.


Not all games are created equal

While cRPGs generally do not bear a justifiable resemblance to their pen & paper predecessors, computer role-playing games (or CRPGS (note the capitalization)) often come within reach of the title. CRPGs include such titles as Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, Neverwinter Nights, The Elder Scrolls, and Fallout.

These games typically allow a much greater degree of characterization, allowing players to define their character's appearance, actions, alignment, etc. However, there is generally no provision made for deeper personality development, so they fall short of being "true" role-playing games.


Where do we draw the line?

Naturally, the distinction has to be made somewhere. The question is whether to allow the definition of a role-playing game to continue being perverted and accept its distortion into something else entirely, or figure out where the distinction lies and attempt to challenge the popular misconception.

It is my opinion that the best way to draw the line is to determine which games make an effort to recreate the role-playing aspects of their tabletop/P&P counterparts. Those that at least try to live up to the real meaning of the genre should be acknowledged for it, while Japanese-style games that do not include any actual role-playing (Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, etc.) should be relabeled properly as action adventure games.

Seeing as the FF series, and many others like it have pre-determined characters, and a linear storyline, making you unable to stray off the inevitable course, i'd say that the term "action/adventure" ties to FF titles and others like them more applicably than "RPG"

Many games that are currently identified as RPGs use completely predefined characters, which should immediately disqualify them from receiving the designation. Without the single defining characteristic mentioned above, a game cannot, by historical standards, be called a role-playing game.

I disagree with this section of your argument. It is perfectly possible to take on the role of, and have a character act in a manner consistent with a predefined history/mentality, even when one had little or no say in the initial creation.

I was (and still, am on occasion) a DM for AD&D for about a decade. I have had the occasional campaign where, for a change of pace, I created and handed out all of the characters to the players. The character were encouraged to make these PCs there own and adapt them to their style of play, but in a gradual, organic way, in response to campaign occurances. It was rather fun acctually, and there was some excelent role-playing.

As a player in P&P RPGs, I have also requested the GM/DM to surprise me with a premade character. It forced me to get out of the rut I typically gravitated to, and provided a new chalange.

These were certainaly still role-playing games.


Those that at least try to live up to the real meaning of the genre should be acknowledged for it, while Japanese-style games that do not include any actual role-playing (Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, etc.) should be relabeled properly as action adventure games.

I generally agree with this. However, I would make the level of relivant interation and customisation possible, while progressing through the game, the defining factor.

as I've said a dozen times now, definitions expand and evolve over time. definitions in one niche mean completely different things in another niche.

RPGs, when talking about computer / console games, include everything from japanese RPGs to some american computer RPGs that include more elements of the traditional P&P RPGs.

it's silly to insist that japanese rpgs aren't really rpgs, because everyone knows what you're talking about if you say you like playing computer / console rpg games.

Widespread misnomers are still misnomers.

I disagree with this section of your argument. It is perfectly possible to take on the role of, and have a character act in a manner consistent with a predefined history/mentality, even when one had little or no say in the initial creation.

I was (and still, am on occasion) a DM for AD&D for about a decade. I have had the occasional campaign where, for a change of pace, I created and handed out all of the characters to the players. The character were encouraged to make these PCs there own and adapt them to their style of play, but in a gradual, organic way, in response to campaign occurances. It was rather fun acctually, and there was some excelent role-playing.

As a player in P&P RPGs, I have also requested the GM/DM to surprise me with a premade character. It forced me to get out of the rut I typically gravitated to, and provided a new chalange.

These were certainaly still role-playing games.

The difference there, however, is that those characters were still yours to develop further as you wished. Their actions and personality were still in your hands, not developed beforehand. Their dialogue was not scripted, they were not doomed to live key moments in a predefined manner.




Sarah, I'm trying to inspire debate on the issue, not baseless ranting. :(

The difference there, however, is that those characters were still yours to develop further as you wished. Their actions and personality were still in your hands, not developed beforehand. Their dialogue was not scripted, they were not doomed to live key moments in a predefined manner.

Thanks for the clarification; I see your point.

Action adventure games broke side-scrolling's neck. You can go anywhere and aren't restricted like the scrollers. With those games you had to walk the length of the stage until the music changed. What a surprise. To me action adventure is the gaming of the future. I like CRPG's to though because of their amazing detail in relation to the character and their world. Still, something about them limits your control of the actual character. Usualy all you can see is the hand and weapon. I dig the Elder Scrolls despite this because they are so in depth in developing the character and there is usualy more than one outcome to the story. As you said prak, you can give them a jerry curl if you wanted or a meat helmet.

I think the problem is that we have accepted the general fact that an RPG is a game with an experience point system and involves leveling up. Warcraft III, for instance, was first conceptualized as an RPS (role playing strategy) because it had heroes who you could level up, not because the gameplay was similar to "traditional" Japanese-style RPGS. There are plenty of other examples similar to this. Kingdom Hearts is just as much action and adventure as Zelda (an action/adventure game), but because it contains leveling up and experience, it is labeled as an RPG.
Thus, RPG specifies a game involving experience and leveling up. To label them as "Action/Adventure" is a misnomer because they do not always contain action/adventure elements. Mario Tennis (for GBC) should not be advertised as a "Sports/Action/Adventure" game, because it is clearly a "Sports/gainexperienceandlevelup" game. Because we have no category for "gainexperienceandlevelup" besides RPG, we should keep using RPG.

Plus, I mean, Action, Adventure, and Action/Adventure are all their own genres that really can't just have RPG added to them.

Action - Yeah, I don't see Ratchet and Clank being the same genre as FFVI.
Adventure - Just think of Sam and Max
Action/Adventure - Here you have games like Zelda, Beyond Good and Evil, etc. Where do turn-based games like Final Fantasy share a similarity to them? They don't. Turn-based games have basically no action, so they can't be action/adventure.

The line is fuzzier when you talk about RPG/Action/Adventure hybrids, like Psychonauts or Kingdom Hearts, but because of the dominant elements Psychonatus is labeled as Action/Adventure, while Kingdom Hearts is an RPG...

So basically, if you can come up with a better and more accurate name than "RPG" or "getexperienceandlevelupGame", then perhaps a change should be warranted. Calling them Action/Adventure games is usually about as accurate as calling them RPGs in the first place, and why change something without any useful gains out of it? Then, we'd have an ambiguous mislabeled Action/Adventure genre, and a "pure" RPG genre, which is just the opposite of the way things are now.

Many games that are currently identified as RPGs use completely predefined characters, which should immediately disqualify them from receiving the designation. Without the single defining characteristic mentioned above, a game cannot, by historical standards, be called a role-playing game.




Naturally, the distinction has to be made somewhere. The question is whether to allow the definition of a role-playing game to continue being perverted and accept its distortion into something else entirely, or figure out where the distinction lies and attempt to challenge the popular misconception.

You sound like a dirty lexicographer.

RPGs in japan were (apparently) based on the concept of taking on a fuller role in the gameworld. So instead of simply tackling one challenge after another in a series of levels, you also mundanely take an active role in the the game's environment. Initially this was simply visiting towns + the normal weapons/levelling stuff and the like, and now it's going to fairs, tournaments, cooking, romances, side jobs etc, with everything being tied together in a larger narrative. Some games give your main character a personality, others make them silent except for when you select their text from several options, and have greatly varying branching paths which depend on your actions. That's a japanese RPG. That's how they interpreted emphasizing role-playing in a video game and it's not a terrible use of the title no matter what some random dice rollers in the 70s may think. I'd hope that in the 30+ years since they made their game they'd learn not to be bothered by it so much.


Adventure - Just think of Sam and Max

Indeed. Although, if you think about it those kind of games are often really just puzzle games. And puzzle games like puzzle bobble are really precision shooters or something. My favorite genre is "platformer" which is the title given to games where you "travel through difficult to navigate terrain and possibly jump often".

Well..."role playing game" is, literally, a game where one plays a 'role.' Whether or not that role is pre-defined is game-specific, not genre-specific. In fact, most computer games are 'rpg' to this extent; for example, in Metroid, you play as Samus Aran. This is a 'role,' Metroid is a 'game,' and you 'play' it, so now we've just classified a shoot-em-up as an RPG. Obviously, as stated, this is a problem.

RPG as we use it probably takes the place of "Adventure/Non-Action." You can also have "Adventure/Action," which I thought was just called "Adventure." Some things I'd really be expecting in a computer RPG:

Battles are seperate occurances.
When you're fighting something, there is NOTHING ELSE GOING ON. You're fighting, period. In an adventure/action game, the field is dynamic; a battle doesn't occur in some sort of magical hyperwarp location that happens to vaguely resemble the environment near your encounter point.

In-Battle Menu use is required.
If basic attacks require an "Attack" menu input, it leans strongly toward being classified as an RPG. Many adventure games, such as .hack, Zelda, and Dark Cloud, do not have this requirement; you -can- fight without even knowing there was a menu available. Most Final Fantasies, on the other hand, do require menu use (sometimes a lot, as was the case in FF VII when you'd gotten a hold of the Master Command materia).

There are turns in battle.
This is a biggie. Most adventure games do NOT have turns. You attack whenever you're capable of pushing the Action button. There is none of
this ATB business, and you most certainly don't have 'combat rounds' like
in Saga Frontier or FFs I through III.

You cannot move in battle.
Another big one. Can you actually -move- your character out of an attack's
range in a fight? Or does the game just calculate the chance for you using the character's Evasion stat? The former is Adventure typed, the latter is RPG typed.

Other things, such as (character statistics/available abilitites/how the game functions outside of battle), mean very little when determining whether a game is RPG or adventure. D&D can have unique character creation and maintenance because it's PnP...in D&D, a regular fight can last 10-20 minutes, and a good one might last a couple of hours. On the compie, if it's longer than 2 minutes, it's considered to be a fight with an extremely HP-heavy monster.

You sound like a dirty lexicographer.

o zing


RPGs in japan were (apparently) based on the concept of taking on a fuller role in the gameworld. So instead of simply tackling one challenge after another in a series of levels, you also mundanely take an active role in the the game's environment. Initially this was simply visiting towns + the normal weapons/levelling stuff and the like, and now it's going to fairs, tournaments, cooking, romances, side jobs etc, with everything being tied together in a larger narrative. Some games give your main character a personality, others make them silent except for when you select their text from several options, and have greatly varying branching paths which depend on your actions. That's a japanese RPG. That's how they interpreted emphasizing role-playing in a video game and it's not a terrible use of the title no matter what some random dice rollers in the 70s may think. I'd hope that in the 30+ years since they made their game they'd learn not to be bothered by it so much.

As I said to Sarah, a rant is no match for my lexicography.


Rydia, I have absolutely no idea what kind of point you were trying to make. :(

Actually Rydia, those concepts (leveling up, turn-based, no movement etc) are just developed to quite hopefully nail down the battles to down-to-earth or at least fairer as freeform RPGs tend to get messy, disorganized, or devolve into a godmode-fest during battles if the players are inexperienced. This, however, is not the definining characteristic of the genre as freeform RPGs are still in existence and practiced by a few RPers.

Playing a role of a character does not mean that you get to play as the character, that would practically put every game in the RPG genre, which obviously isn't the case. To play the role of a character in a way that defines a game as an RPG involves creating the personality, playing said character personality, interacting with NPCs, doing tasks that fits your character etc.

As I said to Sarah, a rant is no match for my lexicography.


Then I will put it another way! This isn't a topic worthy of debate! It is a topic that will mostly just serve as an explanation of why you sometimes pretend to not know what people mean when they say "RPG" in the future.

But in the general sense of word-smithing, it's a compound term which has a natural derivative meaning which can't be held down by the particular usage by a select group of hobbyists.

Okay then! However, I expect to hear no complaints from you when tennis games and the next Half-Life game are labelled as RPGs!

Any topic is a topic worthy of debate, in my opinion. Just because someone argues about something doesn't mean they are terribly emotionally involved in it.

For me personally, the reason to avoid calling most console "RPGs" by that name is not that they aren't the same thing as D&D, exactly. It's not about the hobbyists; I don't even play D&D unless Torment and Neverwinter Nights count. For me it's a language issue. I'm not going to have a heart attack over it, and yes I know what people mean when they say "RPG" in reference to Final Fantasy, but I'd still rather they didn't because it dilutes the meaning of the words involved.

Role-playing games ought to involve a person playing the role of a character. Final Fantasy and its ilk involve no such thing. Controlling a character is not the same thing as playing a role. If you're playing a role you are trying to act in ways that that character would act, and the way people react to you is going to affect that. Final Fantasy doesn't involve that, except to an extremely limited extent when they say something like "oh Cloud don't you think this is great" and you can say "yes" or "banana" or something. They don't allow you to actually play a unique character.

There are lots of things people start to say in the English language, and you know what they mean when they say them. I'm not one of those people who goes around correcting everyone's grammar, but I really do wish that they would pay more attention to it. It's the same principle.


Okay then! However, I expect to hear no complaints from you when tennis games and the next Half-Life game are labelled as RPGs!

I know you were totally joking, but the idea of rezo complaining about those things gave me a good chuckle.

Any topic is a topic worthy of debate, in my opinion.

Yeah, I was just playing off of his "I meant to inspire debate" comment to Sarah while writing comments off as ranting.

And I think what you are talking about are role-creation games. Role-creation. To play a role you don't need to create it! Outside of the D&D ilk, people who play roles tend to follow scripts. How people use terms in different fields varies, obviously, and the particular nature in the way some gamers have gotten to looking at role-playing is kind of like how a lot of developers think puzzle game="a game where you move things into a box to make other things disappear". What you originally define starts to shape the definition. Rydia's post was a good example of that, where a role-playing game to her actually became the conventions that have been established over time. It's like comics being called comics, when "comic" initially was just a descriptive term for the illustrated strips.

I can role-play superbly in counter-strike, provided the role I have taken involves blowing shit up, firing round after round into anyone who crosses my field of view, and generally acting like a suicidal, murderous, jackass.


To play a role you don't need to create it!

This is very true.

As for common role-playing conventions; there are plenty of games that never fit these conventions (pen and paper, as well as computer) that have always been considered RPGs. Also, Rydia is describing FF (and FF clone) conventions, not "RPG" conventions in general.

Role-playing is how you play a game. Not really the game itself. I propose a motion to remove RPG as a genre title.


On the compie, if it's longer than 2 minutes, it's considered to be a fight with an extremely HP-heavy monster.

Nuh uh!

Also, Rydia is describing FF (and FF clone) conventions, not "RPG" conventions in general.

Japanese RPG conventions, really. The ones she plays. I wasn't trying to say they were the only ones. Completely different types have developed their own and they by no means define how all RPGs are made.

Just... you know... the "conventional" ones.

o zing



As I said to Sarah, a rant is no match for my lexicography.


Rydia, I have absolutely no idea what kind of point you were trying to make. :(

I was basically showcasing what my idea of an RPG was from the standpoint of console games. It's difficult to gauge which elements of the original PnP role-playing games would be qualifiers that, when present in a 'cRPG,' verified it was such. What I posted were ideas that I used to try and seperate them out; actually, in an old SNES guidebook I have, -Sim City- is classified as an RPG. I was like, what the hell? Sim City is NOT an RPG, so this really is up for debate...

Obviously Final Fantasy has heavily influenced my perspective.

I was shaky on the idea of actually creating characters yourself being one of those qualifying elements, and I am certain that the presence of 'vital statistics/HP/etc.' is not amongst them (any game can have health bars and varying parameters for different objects). For example, Baldur's Gate is -unbelievably- similar to D&D when it comes to modifying the character, right down to the names of some of the spells and skills, but for me that's an adventure game because combat isn't segmented and you don't need gobs of menus to fight effectively.

And as to the two minute monster comment, that comes from the 'normally able to kill everything in one hit' portion of these games I was referencing. Many times that portion is almost the whole game.

It's difficult to create a console game that allows the player to truly decide the personality of their character, probably because of the inability to write an effective storyline/plot for the character being generated. The programmer's not there witnessing the genesis of each of these brand new individuals, so they prefabricate the scenarios in an attempt to make such games more marketable. I dunno, maybe MOGs make this a bit easier since you're playing with other people...

I'm sure the term Role playing can be extended beyond just dungeons and dragons clones. Otherwise there might be a new genre for any new game that is slightly different from the rest.

Loads of games include Rpg elements despite belonging to another genre. They don't include that term on the box. So how about calling these japanese rpgs something like

Storybased RPG.

More like, interactive novel.

IFor example, Baldur's Gate is -unbelievably- similar to D&D when it comes to modifying the character, right down to the names of some of the spells and skills, but for me that's an adventure game because combat isn't segmented and you don't need gobs of menus to fight effectively.

That is one of the most ridiculous prerequisites to labelling a game as an RPG I've heard in a while. If you've witnessed freeform RP battles in T1 and T2 format, you'll know what I mean.


And as to the two minute monster comment, that comes from the 'normally able to kill everything in one hit' portion of these games I was referencing. Many times that portion is almost the whole game.

That may be true for some games, but there are many games that break those conventions unless you're ridiculously overlevelled.


It's difficult to create a console game that allows the player to truly decide the personality of their character, probably because of the inability to write an effective storyline/plot for the character being generated. The programmer's not there witnessing the genesis of each of these brand new individuals, so they prefabricate the scenarios in an attempt to make such games more marketable. I dunno, maybe MOGs make this a bit easier since you're playing with other people...

That is true, but it's possible to emulate character interaction in some games, especually when the storyline is modular in nature instead of linear or multilinear. Star Ocean also attempted to emulate that with the Approval rating system.

I would submit to you that "RPG" can include all other genres as a subset. Because, in the most open-ended interpretation of "role playing", you are doing just that in everything from Ace Combat (an ass-kicking fighter pilot) to any given sports game where you create your own player to Zone of the Enders.

Well, those were exclusions, not prerequisites, hehe...again, heavily influenced by FF, and this is made clear by the fact that I don't know what "T1" or "T2" is.

Yeah, I was just playing off of his "I meant to inspire debate" comment to Sarah while writing comments off as ranting.

And I think what you are talking about are role-creation games. Role-creation. To play a role you don't need to create it! Outside of the D&D ilk, people who play roles tend to follow scripts. How people use terms in different fields varies, obviously, and the particular nature in the way some gamers have gotten to looking at role-playing is kind of like how a lot of developers think puzzle game="a game where you move things into a box to make other things disappear". What you originally define starts to shape the definition. Rydia's post was a good example of that, where a role-playing game to her actually became the conventions that have been established over time. It's like comics being called comics, when "comic" initially was just a descriptive term for the illustrated strips.

No, there's a big difference. If they were just role-creating games you could invent some role and then the game could still force you to play one way. I'm talking about a game that actually changes the experience depending on how you play, and specifically on the personality and actions of your character. It doesn't matter if you create the character or not, what matters is whether you have control over the progression and decisions of that character afterwards. Directing Cloud through Final Fantasy is hardly any different from directing Tetris blocks. You push buttons and it moves, but the goal, motivations, and method are never yours to decide.

The misnomer of the word "comic" I think is why a lot of people use "graphic novel" now. That doesn't really bother me as much though because it's like making up slang for a word (like how "cool" means either chilly or hip) without replacing its original meaning. Now "role-playing game" is more likely to make people think of games devoid of any role-playing than ones that actually involve it, and that's why I think it's stupid.

The misnomer isn't why people use graphic novel. Beyond people that are simply used to it(graphic novels used to be more commonly called trade paperbacks and such, monthly issues don't have any common name besides "comic book") it was just part of the push against the image comics had, but largely graphic novels are just a "type of comic book".

And like I said, outside of gaming, playing a role doesn't have the same connotation or expectations attached to it. It can reasonably be taken as taking on another personality and following a script just as easily as it can be a game where you decide to be a thief or a paladin and pick which guilds to join or something with no ultimate goal.

A lot of the RPGs I'm talking about do have an ultimate goal, it's just how you get there (sometimes they even let you decide if you want to be good or evil and finish accordingly; you kill the big evil final villain but only so you can be the evil ruler in his place or some such).

I think it's interesting that you said "taking on a personality." That's kind of exactly what I'm talking about—you don't do that in Final Fantasy. The personality is there already and all you do is watch it get acted out. If you look at other contexts of the term "playing a role," the easiest one to think of is acting, in which an actor is supposed to "become" another person and act as they would, which is exactly what I'm talking about doing in a role-playing game. Obviously there are tons of different ways to play the same character. In fact this is a good analogy for what I'm trying to say. If playing it is a little like being a stage actor, then I think it's fair to say it's a "role-playing" game.

ahem
the term rpg may have started off with very strict guidelines about FREEFORM characterisation, but i would like to disagree with the conclusion that just because you can not edit or personalise every aspect of a character in a game that said game does not deserve the title of rpg.
if the consumer can choose their player, even if a fair few of the characteristics are pre-determined, they are still selecting the character that they prefer and they are still entering and reacting to scenarios as that character, therefore roleplaying.
maybe it is slightly depressing that gaming standards have slipped in this manner, but that's the reality.
this also means that the label rpg is ludicrously broad and can be applied to nearly every single game released, but shit happens and every 8 year old gaming nut will agree with the aforementioned definition.
whilst some have the decency to refrain from lying to sell a product, this quality is extremely rare.
depressing but true.

this also means that the label rpg is ludicrously broad and can be applied to nearly every single game released, but shit happens and every 8 year old gaming nut will agree with the aforementioned definition.

And this is the entire point of the discussion. A term is not accurate or acceptable simply because it's commonplace. If it is inaccurate, it should be rejected.

ahem
the term rpg may have started off with very strict guidelines about FREEFORM characterisation, but i would like to disagree with the conclusion that just because you can not edit or personalise every aspect of a character in a game that said game does not deserve the title of rpg.
if the consumer can choose their player, even if a fair few of the characteristics are pre-determined, they are still selecting the character that they prefer and they are still entering and reacting to scenarios as that character, therefore roleplaying.
maybe it is slightly depressing that gaming standards have slipped in this manner, but that's the reality.
this also means that the label rpg is ludicrously broad and can be applied to nearly every single game released, but shit happens and every 8 year old gaming nut will agree with the aforementioned definition.
whilst some have the decency to refrain from lying to sell a product, this quality is extremely rare.
depressing but true.

Hey, smarty-pants, we are talking about whether the term makes sense, not whether 8 year olds use it.

Your statement that choosing a character for a video game is the same as role-playing is incorrect. Playing a role involves "becoming" that role, not controlling it. I already explained all this though so I don't know why I'm bothering.

My assertion: The term "role-playing game" or "RPG" as it is commonly used in reference to electronic media is wildly inaccurate. Many games labeled as such (such as the Final Fantasy series) are not role-playing games at at all; rather, they are action/adventure games.

I think the action/adventure label would be even more counterproductive than the current misnomer. Perhaps I'm wildly incorrect, but when I hear "action/adventure," my first thoughts are games like Tomb Raider and Jak and Dexter. Wouldn't labelling FF as "action/adventure" confuzzle things worse than the current misnomer? Especially when you can easily differentiate Pen and Paper RPGs from console RPG's.

Perhaps you're at least partly right about that, although I'd call those games you mentioned action platformers. It probably would be best for an entirely new term to be created.

I think these days there is a difference between an "RPG" and a "traditional RPG", because parts of the industry are moving away from some conventions that many people thought were very strongly associated with role-playing. Its not inherently a bad thing... I'm kind of curious to see if someone can make up a new benchmark (I think Bethesda has done that in one regard).

Perhaps you're at least partly right about that, although I'd call those games you mentioned action platformers. It probably would be best for an entirely new term to be created.

"Action/adventure" is such a broad term anymore, that nearly anything can be labeled as such. Well, anything that isn't clearly of another genre, like, say, Gran Turismo or Halo. Anyway, I agree with you about creating a new term entirely--so long as the term is concise and unique. I think these pseudo-RPGs are numerous (and different) enough to warrent their own genre--however, I can't think of a new term right now (just woke up and had a big breakfast...:-) ).

Levelups? It's like Schmups, but you level your characters up instead of shooting shit up.

Perhaps you're at least partly right about that, although I'd call those games you mentioned action platformers. It probably would be best for an entirely new term to be created.

People used to talk about "adventure games" all the time, which were games that just involved... going on an adventure. I see no reason not to keep using that, and I think Final Fantasy would go in that category since it is an adventure game. There are a lot of battles, but it's hard to call it an "action" game, really, since they are so paced.

I think we should re-name the final fantasy RPG thing to adventure fighting or just simply in my language FF-RPG see for final fantasy-role playing game. WOuld that help the debate any??

Interactive Storybook would be closer.

yep that would be logical to so i go with that one

The way I figure it is this: RPG can be applied to almost any game, but it better fits with the more open ended ones. Games like Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind could be considered an RPG because you don't have to do anything. But if you were to take the term Role-playing game literally, any game would qualify, because you're playing a role, whether you created it or not.

It really is hard to determine where the line is with RPGs, so perhaps it could better fit as a blanket term, and have different sections within it. So just like a game can be Console game--->Shooter--->First Person, a game could be Console game--->RPG--->Open Ended.

I think RPG may be one of those terms that changed over time due to incorrect use. So while it may have originally meant "D&D" style game, it now basically means "Get experience and level up" game.

And this is the entire point of the discussion. A term is not accurate or acceptable simply because it's commonplace. If it is inaccurate, it should be rejected.

An inaccurate term should not be thrown away if you're just going to replace it with an equally inaccurate term.

This has already been said, but I really think the RPG descriptor really can apply to console and computer games. It is true that console RPGs are not traditional PnP RPGs, but the genre as applied to consoles still holds. There has been a standing definition of the console RPG for the last twenty years. This has involved experience points, customizing characters to various degrees, a complex story, etc). As RPGs have progressed, even this defintion has been altered, with the addition of real-time action/adventure, tactical, and pure action RPGs and the like.

This debate is entirely necessary because these ideas should always debated, and there has been a real concern over the sometimes overuse of the term RPG. I don't think we'll be seeing the next tennis game labeled as an RPG, but the concern is there.

The FF and DQ series are perfect examples of the console RPG. They can rightly be defined as RPGs IMO, based on the parameters oof the console RPG genre. There are certain aspects that are unique to RPGs. It is not enough to simply posess some of those aspects. Castlevania: SotN as RPG elements, but is clearly not an RPG. Zelda is often misclassified as an RPG. The question is, how do we define the paramaters, even in the midst of an evolving console RPG genre?

I'm ranting now, so I'll stop.

The way I figure it is this: RPG can be applied to almost any game, but it better fits with the more open ended ones. Games like Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind could be considered an RPG because you don't have to do anything. But if you were to take the term Role-playing game literally, any game would qualify, because you're playing a role, whether you created it or not.

It really is hard to determine where the line is with RPGs, so perhaps it could better fit as a blanket term, and have different sections within it. So just like a game can be Console game--->Shooter--->First Person, a game could be Console game--->RPG--->Open Ended.

I think RPG may be one of those terms that changed over time due to incorrect use. So while it may have originally meant "D&D" style game, it now basically means "Get experience and level up" game.

Right. I think it's clear that the current use of the term RPG is incorrect, as far as what the term originally meant (D&D, etc). Couldn't we just create a separate classification for console RPGs, with full awareness of the implications?

There has been a standing definition of the console RPG for the last twenty years.

And the entire point of the thread is whether that should continue to be upheld, considering that it was inaccurate in the first place and will only lead to problems down the road.


This has involved experience points, customizing characters to various degrees, a complex story, etc).

I've proved fairly conclusively that NONE of these are truly defining characteristics of the role-playing genre.

But just to turn things around a bit and look from another angle, consider this: Is something a defining characteristic of a genre if it can be easily adapted into games of other genres? Experience points can factor into almost any genre you can imagine. When you get right down to it, you could say that even Tetris uses them, as it counts the number of rows you've completed and uses that to determine when you advance to the next level (LEVEL UP LOL). Considering this, how can experience points and levelling up be considered a defining characteristic of RPGs?


As RPGs have progressed, even this defintion has been altered, with the addition of real-time action/adventure, tactical, and pure action RPGs and the like.

Indeed. And this shows the weakness in the use of the term. If it had been used properly all along, we wouldn't have to worry about confusions such as those. They would all have their own proper classifications instead of being shunted under a nearly all-encompassing genre definition.


The FF and DQ series are perfect examples of the console RPG. They can rightly be defined as RPGs IMO, based on the parameters oof the console RPG genre.

IMO doesn't cut it in this context. We're not dealing with individual opinions. We're reaching for a concensus on the issue based on nothing but the facts at hand and disregarding the comfort and familiarity of the misnomer.


There are certain aspects that are unique to RPGs.

You bet there are. I described them in the first post. The only thing that can logically be called a defining characteristic of the RPG genre is free-form character development. Once you understand that, the blocks fall into place.


Castlevania: SotN as RPG elements, but is clearly not an RPG. Zelda is often misclassified as an RPG. The question is, how do we define the paramaters, even in the midst of an evolving console RPG genre?

*sigh*

At this point, I'm wondering if you even read the first post in the thread. If you didn't, do so.

.

It is my opinion that the best way to draw the line is to determine which games make an effort to recreate the role-playing aspects of their tabletop/P&P counterparts. Those that at least try to live up to the real meaning of the genre should be acknowledged for it, while Japanese-style games that do not include any actual role-playing (Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, etc.) should be relabeled properly as action adventure games.

Actually, Prak, I did read the first post. The above quote? I'm disputing your claim. I'm arguing that your formulation that true RPGs are only those that emulate the P&P design is flawed and much too rigid. In my view, the term RPG as applied to consoles is perfectly valid (the eastern-style RPG in other words), as long as we recognize the distinctions.

I found this helpful in explaining the differences between the two:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_differences_in_computer_and_console_role-playing_games

Keep in mind also that I am well aware of the language implications involve here. No one hates the misuse of words more than I, but I think your assertion that cRPGs have no role playing at all is a stretch. cRPGs have role playing and customization, albeit in a far more limited (and IMO a more focused) way.

For one thing, I do not find the differences between the two styles to be nearly as relevant to the discussion as the reason for the difference, which I have already explained. If you want to dispute the reason, you may feel free to try, but that argument is airtight.

You claim that my assertion is flawed and overly rigid? That's rather vague. I believe I have justified it rather strongly, backing it up with historical facts and well-reasoned insight, so merely giving your unsupported view on the matter does nothing to even weaken my own stance, much less give power to your own.

Frankly, I'm not liking this discussion. You do very little to justify your points and very often rely on the "my opinion" tactic, which holds very little weight. If you want to continue, I suggest that you try solidifying your arguments with facts and insightful commentary, rather than just vague notions.

Okay Prak, you've convinced me. I really did read it carefully this time. It's clear that the traditional definition of RPGs does NOT allow for the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series to be included among its ranks. I tried to argue that even limited role playing capacity (in cRPGs versus traditional ones with freeform character control) could legitimize console RPGs as a part of the traditional genre, but this becomes problematic, because even games like Metal Gear Solid become RPGs, which they are clearly not. Your point is indeed solid, and I'm ceding defeat.

The question then becomes one of implications. I still think that the distinctions between traditional and eastern-style RPGs are clear to most. Could be just call cRPGs pseudo-RPGs, or something similar? There are differences between pseudo-RPGs and other games traditionally classified as action/adventure. FF may not be a true RPG, but it is substantially more of an RPG than say, Zelda. Can we take that standing definition of RPGs that exists today, admittedly erroneous as it is, and call those games that fit in that category pseudo-RPGs?

That's the question that remains unanswered. At their core, such games are most similar to adventure games. However, adventure games are traditionally not combat oriented. I'd say that the creation of an entirely new classification is warranted, but there isn't anything I've thought of or had presented to me that really fits.

So can we safely say the RPG genre is dead? What are some recent "true" rpgs?

I guess its also save to say that the whole industry is retarded lol. They consider all FF, DQ etc..games to be rpgs. Someone should set them straight.

Should we label games like FF, turn based adventure games?

I AGREE WITH PRAK

RENAME RPGS GAMES THAT ARE MADE TO GO LONG TIME WHERE YOU READ STUFF AND PRESS BUTTONS TO ADVANCE THE STORY THAT IS SOMETIMES VERY BAD AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE PLAYING

In short that could be GTAMTGLTWYRSAPBTATSTISVBAYSBP but since you 3 letters would be better I would go with GAMs because Games GAMs makes sense to me.

Oh if it is an GAM where you have more action type elements, AGAM. You can just modify the GAM to get GAMmy goodness.

How about calling them stratergy based adventure games due to the fact that these games often need you to think about what you are doing whever it be using a potion to heal some one, casting the right spells so not to heal your enemies or running around for hours onend leveling up so you are strong enough to kick the shit out of anything that looks at you in a funny way

I wonder about this. I think a new term should be mentioned. I would not replace the term rpg(when I am talking about tradition/action/tactical/pc style/western console rpg's) with adventure game, but a new term. More specifically I would give out seperate terms to all 5 subgenres of console rpg's.

Traditional
Action
Tactical
PC Style
Western

I wonder what to rename those genres? Also, is there any other genre that shows up on pc or handheld that I didn't list? :D