What Constitutes an RPG

[Lusit]

The term "RPG" is thrown around fairly often these days. Many games are called RPGs, and it starts endless discussion as to whether or not 'X' is an RPG. But what really constitutes an RPG? Is it putting yourself into the shoes of another (basically every game ever is an RPG then), making your own character, or something else that's more complicated than that.

To me, I think that an RPG is an RPG when it has a battle system that uses number and formulae to determine damage. Simply saying "If you shoot him in the head he dies" does not make it an RPG, but saying "If you shoot him in the head with a weapon of 4 power, a bullet going 200 miles per hour, and depending on his armor, he will lose 'x' amount of hit points, which may or may not kill him depending on how powerful he is".

But more importantly, what do you think?

[Ziggy]

I think an RPG definitely needs some sort of statistical data to be an RPG. Whether it be a leveling system or whatever. If it's not there, it's just not an RPG. Zelda is not an RPG.

[Ack]

To me, I think that an RPG is an RPG when it has a battle system that uses number and formulae to determine damage. Simply saying "If you shoot him in the head he dies" does not make it an RPG, but saying "If you shoot him in the head with a weapon of 4 power, a bullet going 200 miles per hour, and depending on his armor, he will lose 'x' amount of hit points, which may or may not kill him depending on how powerful he is".

Trouble is, that's how most video games work. Take a First Person Shooter, for instance. An FPS works because each weapon has had a specific amount of damage assigned to it, generally a number. And every enemy has a certain amount of health. You fire the weapon into the enemy, and they lose X health because you caused X damage. Now in some cases locational damage applies, meaning if they are hit in Y area, the X damage from the weapon is multiplied. So a shotgun may do 50 damage, while an enemy has 75 health, but a headshot may be worth a multiplier of x5, meaning you did 250 damage to him. Or he may have a helmet, which might reduce the multiplier to x.5, so a headshot only does 25 points of damage.

Fighting games are also similar, with each move assigned a basic numeric value for damage. Health in most fighting games where I see it brought up tends to average around 200 points. A punch may do 5 or it may do 25, depending on the character and the attack. And it's possible an enemy may reduce damage for armor or something like that.

But none of these are in the open, unlike in most "RPGs" where the numbers are told to the player. Also, both the FPS and Fighting game rely on distance and hitboxes, while the RPG tends to rely on straight numbers. But the two can cross paths, such as Deus Ex.

[Lusit]

To me, I think that an RPG is an RPG when it has a battle system that uses number and formulae to determine damage. Simply saying "If you shoot him in the head he dies" does not make it an RPG, but saying "If you shoot him in the head with a weapon of 4 power, a bullet going 200 miles per hour, and depending on his armor, he will lose 'x' amount of hit points, which may or may not kill him depending on how powerful he is".

Trouble is, that's how most video games work. Take a First Person Shooter, for instance. An FPS works because each weapon has had a specific amount of damage assigned to it, generally a number. And every enemy has a certain amount of health. You fire the weapon into the enemy, and they lose X health because you caused X damage. Now in some cases locational damage applies, meaning if they are hit in Y area, the X damage from the weapon is multiplied. So a shotgun may do 50 damage, while an enemy has 75 health, but a headshot may be worth a multiplier of x5, meaning you did 250 damage to him. Or he may have a helmet, which might reduce the multiplier to x.5, so a headshot only does 25 points of damage.

Fighting games are also similar, with each move assigned a basic numeric value for damage. Health in most fighting games where I see it brought up tends to average around 200 points. A punch may do 5 or it may do 25, depending on the character and the attack. And it's possible an enemy may reduce damage for armor or something like that.

But none of these are in the open, unlike in most "RPGs" where the numbers are told to the player. Also, both the FPS and Fighting game rely on distance and hitboxes, while the RPG tends to rely on straight numbers. But the two can cross paths, such as Deus Ex.

Perhaps I oversimplified it. There must be a complex system, which contains variables beyond a weapon or which move you use. The greatest example of these would be the stats in each category, not to mention your level.

Also, I think that turn based combat has something to do with it, although this is subjective. Menu based combat is one of the most telltale signs that something is an rpg (although it isn't always that case)

[final fight cd]

I think an RPG definitely needs some sort of statistical data to be an RPG. Whether it be a leveling system or whatever. If it's not there, it's just not an RPG. Zelda is not an RPG.

based on your definition, i think one could argue zelda is a rpg.

the health system and weapon/armor strength is represented by hearts and colors which could be easily replaced with numbers. acquiring hearts, gaining new suits - blue and red - etc i see as analogous to 'leveling' up.

[Ziggy]

I was planning on some one saying that.

I can see how you could look at hearts as hit points, but it still isn't a number based system. But you don't exactly level up, so to speak. Granted, you get new stuff, but it would be comparable to equip-able armor in RPGs and not so much 'leveling up'. You never actually gain any stats from fighting, and pretty much everything is optional. You can go through the entire game with out picking up most heart pieces and even the mails if I remember correctly.

But honestly, I had a much better argument thought up. Now that I'm tired with a headache I have no idea what I was gonna say.

[final fight cd]

you get new stuff, but it would be comparable to equip-able armor in RPGs and not so much 'leveling up'. You never actually gain any stats from fighting, and pretty much everything is optional. You can go through the entire game with out picking up most heart pieces and even the mails if I remember correctly.

okay. i totally agree with this.

[Lusit]

I think an RPG definitely needs some sort of statistical data to be an RPG. Whether it be a leveling system or whatever. If it's not there, it's just not an RPG. Zelda is not an RPG.

based on your definition, i think one could argue zelda is a rpg.

the health system and weapon/armor strength is represented by hearts and colors which could be easily replaced with numbers. acquiring hearts, gaining new suits - blue and red - etc i see as analogous to 'leveling' up.

You don't get new heart pieces by beating shittons of enemies and allotting experience, do you?

This perfectly underlines the intent I made this thread with, to highlight the blurring of the definition of an RPG in recent times.

[the7k]

I'd say an RPG is any game in which there is a strong focus on narrative and characterization (whether they're good or not is something else entirely) and the gameplay focuses on exploration and tactical combat (again, whether it succeeds doesn't matter - just that it was attempted). Also, strong emphasis on character development - whether it be with predefined characters who develop through narrative and combat (leveling up), or user-generated characters who develop through the player interaction and combat.

That's why games like Deus Ex are considered RPGs - there is a very strong focus on narrative, characterization, exploration and tactical combat. Also, while you are using pre-defined characters, you are able to manipulate their development through an experience system and bio-modification system.

Some might try to argue that games like GTA:San Andreas are also RPGs, but I'd say they aren't because while elements of RPGs might be there, they are far from the focus. You can't just call yourself an RPG if you make my swimming ability statistically improve and give me the ability to wear a wide variety of clothing.

It's guess it's kinda like the difference between Erotica and Pornography. It's hard to explain, but you know the difference when you see it... usually.

[Gamerforlife]

Strong emphasis on story does not = rpg

The ENTIRE game revolving around the story = rpg. That means TONS of dialogue and cutscenes. Although that alone doesn't make an rpg or we'd be calling Metal Gear Solid an rpg

The game must have stats and levels. Some numerical representation of character growth

The game must have tons of items and weapons to collect. Each of which has an effect on your characters stats and abilities

Usually, there are towns to explore and NPCs to interact with. Usually, where you heal up your party and often need to speak to a specific NPC to advance the story

Combat is based on stats and strategy and usually turn based. Often at the expense of any semblance of realism. However, those rpgs that do try to have more realistic, real time combat usually fall into the action rpg category

USUALLY, players will control a party of characters, though some rpgs can get away with just giving you one character to control. In the old days, you could have four party members, but for some odd reason a lot of games limit it to three now

That's an rpg. It's not that complicated. Zelda is not an rpg. It's an adventure game with strong rpg influences. Zelda is much closer to Tomb Raider, Ico and Prince of Persia than it is to an actual rpg. Nobody calls Okami or Beyond Good and Evil rpgs and they are clearly Zelda inspired. I rest my case. Shenmue is not an rpg, it's...well, a crappy game. I personally hate when people call games like that rpgs. They are NOT. RPGs are not that hard to identify

Now if you want to get technical, an rpg should give players control over how their characters interact with the story, but that is a very Western D&D inspired perspective as the Japanese generally don't consider freedom of choice to be important to the genre