What's an RPG?
 

Role Playing Games.

We have without our gaming society the current genre of RPG which is often attached to such games as the Final Fantasy series, Dragon Warrior, and loosely to the Zelda line of games.

Yet I must query as toward what exactly constitutes an RPG?

For example, in Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior there are levels, statistics, equipment, spells/skills that you can learn, and a well woven storyline in most cases.

In Zelda there are equipment, spells/skills that you can learn, and of course the story.

But I must point out that in F.E.A.R. there seem to be elements of RPGs. Does that mean FEAR should be placed in the Action/RPG hybrid genre?


And to make things even more debateable, I must ask...should we even HAVE an RPG genre as it currently stands, or should we create a new genre as the RPG genre seems to be existent in quite a few games that are, obviously, not considered "classic RPGs"?

Well, cRPGs are derived from their cousin Pen and Paper RPGs. As such, cRPGs are characterized by the existence of 'statistics' which determine a character's abilities relative to other characters in the game.

Thanks to the versatility of modern technology, however, we've been given the ability to blur the line between cRPGs and adventure, action, and even FPS games.

So.. things like, say, Dark Cloud, despite not having a story of any real sort (I mean, it has one, but it's basically just an excuse to make you stab stuff), is still more an 'RPG' than the Zelda games, because of the inclusion of levels and statistics.

The Zelda games fall more into action/adventure, with very little in the way of actual RPG elements. People point out things like hearts and how you gain more as you go on in the game--so what? Is, like, Megaman an RPG now? Of course not. The ability to get stronger as the game progresses is common throughout every genre. Without a more realized stat system it's not so much RPG as it is just a basic video game trope.

Arg...why does this thing, especially since I KNOW this came up because of the whole Zelda thing in the other thread, spark so much debate?

For a short time, I worked as a game tester for Sony and this is how they describe an RPG:

"A game where you take on the Role of a Character finding Items or Information to complete Objectives or a Quest."

If seen similar definitions given by Nintendo, Microsoft, Blizzard and just about every major creditable source that ever tried to 'define' an RPG (that didn't sound completly off their rocker while doing so).

At first look, yes, that looks like it could be linked to just about 90% of all games, excluding possibly puzzle games, 'brain games', shoot-em-ups with no collection of items or end goal or Flash/Doujin games that require you to do little to nothing to complete the objective. But upon closer inspection, you can see there's a little more to it.

That definition really does focus games more towards traditional 'RPGs', WRPGs, JRPGs, MMORPGs, SRPGs and yes, even Zelda. Since Zelda 1 way back on the NES, Miyamoto andNintendo has been calling Zelda an Action/Adventure RPG and if you look at it, especially with THIS definition, it is. Link is your character. You collect items and information to proceed. You use those two things to complete smaller objectives and then the overall quest. In this way, Zelda kind of fits a little too well for that definition even compared to something like a Final Fantasy which seems to follow more of 'gain information to get to X trigger (objective) to start the process over again until you get to the last trigger (last boss fight which is the end of story trigger)'.

Anyway, I don't know why people have such a hard time contemplating this genre except that they have feelings certain games shouldn't be an RPG 'just because'. Or of course, because they think one game feels more RPGish than another (closer to table-top traditional, jRPGs are inferior to WRPGs, Zelda is too actiony to be an RPG, whatever your argument). I use to be like you and wanted to argue anything, even Metroid could be an RPG. Samus collects items to complete objectives (get to bosses and new areas) to complete a quest (defeat mother brain). But the definition is a LITTLE more solid than that. If only because there's 32868389032856908421 RPGs that have made the RPG genre what it is.

3/4 of those RPGs being licenced by Atlus.

Woooooooooah, okay what part of FEAR was like an RPG?

The acquisition of equipment and permanent boosters(equateable to heart containers of the Zelda series) as well as an engrossing storyline.

Really, what it boils down to is whether or not statistic and level progressions make the RPG genre. To some, that's a requirement. To others, thier definition is more liberal. You can ping-pong all you like, it's just not very likely to persuade someone to go to the other veiwpoint. I, myself, think that some sort of stat or level progressions are a pretty central core to the RPG experience, whether it be a western RPG or an eastern RPG.

Though, perhaps we can just define 'action/adventure' as action games with adventure and RPG elements. Not enough to be either genre, but a solid mix of the two. See, quite a number of people would consider that too liberal of a definition.

Yeah, seriously liberal definition of an RPG. Pretty much every game ever would be an RPG according to that line of thinking.

Also, engrossing storyline?

I thought FEAR was pretty atmospheric and all, but come on.

MegaMan Legends is considered an action/adventure RPG and the only thing it has that FEAR doesn't are shops and sidequests.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Now you're just going all over the place with your arguments. I'm sure that maybe, just somehow Legends has a few more differences from FEAR.

If it doesn't have character customization (Through stats or physical aesthetics) then it's no RPG of mine.

Edit: I've never heard of Megaman Legends what's it like.