What makes a RPG?
 

I was reading though the "Which of the following RPGs do you like the most?"
and saw this:

This got me thinking. What Exactly makes a game an RPG?

Well, to be technicle, FFT is a tactical strategy RPG. I'd say an RPG has to have characters, a plot, and a world (not just a bunch a levels).

Today while I was watching G4/Tech TV (it's been a REALLY slow day), they were discussing RPGs and the GTA series came up. They said it was an RPG because you take the role of a gangster, which in a sense is true. However, I believe that for a video game to qualify as an RPG, it must have a character advancement system, such as leveling up (or the sphere grid, in the case of FFX, which I actually enjoyed more) as well as a world and a plot. Character advancement is also key, but I believe that a leveling system is what makes RPGs stand out from other games.

I believe the leveling thing has been given the title of 'defining trademark of RPGs', since whenever you hear about a game having 'RPG elements' it usually means leveling, be it weapons or body parts or whatever.

What makes a RPG is a so-called 'Character Development' system. Once it has that, it's labeled. As for what makes it good, memorable, and replayable:

Story, Past and developing: A good example of this is Final Fantasy 7 - it had good character backstories that made you want to find out what happened to them, and as the game went on it shocked you with a death of a character. KotoR is another good example of this.

Villain: We love FF6 for Kefka, FF7 for Sephiroth, and Chrono Trigger somewhat for it's Antihero, Magus.

Music: We also love the above games for their music. It makes them bearable at times when the battle system is horrid (Final Fantasy 8)

Open-Ended: This is hard to pull off with a strong storyline, but it strengthens the replayability. Examples: Morrowind, Fable, Fallout 1 & 2, and so-forth!

Yeah, pretty much all those things can be found in about any game outside the sports genre. Heck, Metal Gear Solid, Contra, Ratchet and Clank...those are elements of any good game, not just an RPG.

well pretty much any game that focuses more on the combat than on storytelling, meaningful character development or problem solving is a "something"-RPG (tactical, action, strategic, whatever).

why? because when you're "playing the role" of a character, there should be more than just fighting available to you. such as in Fallout 1&2, or in a tabletop rpg.

thats my view on it.

RPG is a terrible term for these games. Role-Playing-Game, a game where you play the role of a character. EVERY game pretty much is one of those. The ones that aren't are like, racing games (Unless you actually get to see the driver). When I was a kid, we used to call them 'saving games', because we didn't have a better word for it. Of course, this included games like Zelda, which aren't really 'RPGs', and not to mention the dilemma with password games.

In one thread it was said that Final Fantasy 1 wasn't really an RPG, because it didn't have any 'role play' elements... However, it still fits into the same category that FF6 deserves to belong to.

A Role Playing Game would be a game wherein you could make any choices you want, and are given absolute free reign. Examples are Dungeons and Dragons, and Vampire: The Masquerade. All of these other games, Final Fantasy, Chrono Cross, Super Mario RPG, deserve their own title. What that title should be, I don't know, but I do know what characterizes them as what they are. They have some sort of third person overhead camera for starters. Secondly, they have some means to level up and increase the power of the characters. Thirdly, they have battle systems wherein you don't have full control of the characters, you input commands that the characters follow. You get to watch the characters as they progress through the story, and sure you have influence but not total control. Of course, these are examples of typical 'RPGs' (Otherwise known as console RPGs). I'd call them story games if only that didn't sound so corny. Maybe Battle games, because they focus on fighting? But then that kinda rules out Xenogears, because it gets far more into story than fighting, even though the story IS fighting...

I give up, I didn't have an answer before, and I don't now. SapphireX, When I read that thread I thought the exact same thing, I only didn't start this thread because I really don't know...

This has been a big discussion before. I use to take this point of view myself, but I don't really know what to think anymore.

My big classic examples to always bring up to exactly just what is an 'RPG' are Zelda and Metroid. Now, the Definition for 'RPG' is simply an RPG is a 'Role Playing Game'. Now, aside from a game where you are a nameless, faceless entity flying through the cosmos doing NOTHING....that discription can basically be ANY game ever made. So where do these two games fit in? Simply put, I believe Metroid and Zelda can be considered 'kinds' of RPGs.

Most people only think RPGs are games that are actually called them. And for the most part, only games that have a system of upgrading characters through skills or numbers or games made by certain companies are labeled as RPGs. But of a game like Zelda, we see that, if you look at it in a different way, you can see all the different things you see in a standard RPG. Leveling up is done, not by indavidual levels and numbers, but by beating bosses and obtaining pieces of Heart. Instead of a system such as gaining Magical abilities through levels/Materia/Runes, Link gains his skills through many different means such as the items he finds, leveling the items themselves, and in various other ways over other games (age, combonation of weapons, magical beings). The same is true in Metroid, with upgrades replacing Level Ups and various Skills being obtained through items and enemies rather than 'traditional' RPG means. Same also goes with the later Castlevanias, some Kirby games and hey, even Harvest Moon (should we call Harvest Moon a Strategy/Farming/Dating Sim and RPG?)

What really has classified an 'RPG' is just the companies who make the games, I think. For a time, Miyamoto liked to classify Zelda as an Action/Adventure/RPG, but lately he hasn't cared to use that analogy and just simply called it something of itself (as I feel after Ocarina of Time it has become). And Metroid, well, its latest incarnations, minus the GBA ones, seem to be in a class all their own as well, going from a side-scrolling shooter (slash possible RPG) to something I like to call a 'FPA' or 'First Person Adventure'. And it looks like Prime 2 is only going to further make Metroid as Unique as Zelda and surpass the Adventure part of even its predecessor.

So....what's the boundary for RPG? Donno. I think we'll have to leave that up to the people at Squenix, Namco, Konami, Koei, Natsume, Camelot, Intellegent Studios, Nippon Ichi and all the other companies who are making all the RPGs as of present.I guess I still would like to believe, because the term itself is just so loose, that basically any game where you control a character and advance him through some kind of movement in a game like fashion is an RPG...

Perhaps an RPG is simply just something that won't be clearly defined as an Action game or a Fighter or a Racing game.

What is a RPG? An interesting question.

The definition that I generally use is that an RPG is a game where you control a limited number of characters that start off as being mediocre but have the potential to become much stronger. It also has a storyline (it may or may not suck, but it's there) which is followed throughout the course of the game. Sidequests are also a thing that I have come to include in my definition, as I can't remember the last RPG I played without sidequests. I can't think of any more elements to a true RPG, but I'll post more if I think of them.

This definition, of course, does not include MMORPG's, which are sidequests unto themselves.