What is an RPG, General Thread

[Aegis]

The funny thing about the RPG genre is that you cannot classify it by individual aspects. In other words, dissecting the game into its seperate bits is useless, as no one aspect truly makes an RPG. The truth is, is that an RPG requires multiple aspects to make it, as the purist or RPG 'elite,' would call it an RPG.

The key ingredients have definitly been touched upon. Things like Character Development, Cause/Effect relationship between the character and the environment and a strong and compelling storyline. It is because of these factors working together that an RPG is made, and it is also the reason why many people would never really consider any console or PC RPG a 'true' RPG, because there exist too many limitations in the hardware.

[DesR85]

I agree with what Aegis has said. But I want to pose a pretty unorthodox question. Does an RPG really need to be a 'true' RPG just to be great game?

Think about this: There are a slew of RPGs (both consoles and PCs) out in the market that lack some of the elements common in RPGs and yet they turn out to be quite fun and interesting to play. So, in my opinion, is it necessary for an RPG to embody all of the aforementioned features just to be great?

[Xandax]

Of course a game doesn't need to be a true RPG to be fun and good game.
My beef is however lableing games as RPG when they have little or nothing to do with being RPGs simply for the sake of marketing. That annoys me, because it messes up the perception of the genre amongst the public and then subsequently by for the producers. Just look at how many think Diablo is a RPG for instance. That has cause me much annoyance over the years


Otherwise, I'm pretty much in agreement with Aegis. It is a combination of elements/characteristics (which is also why I think Diablo is no RPG) moreso then just displaying one of two of the characteristics.
Otherwise, even FPS games could be percived as a RPG.

[qizatch]

[QUOTE=DesR85]I agree with what Aegis has said. But I want to pose a pretty unorthodox question. Does an RPG really need to be a 'true' RPG just to be great game? [/QUOTE]
Of course not, but it certainly helps
For instance, I enjoy games like Diablo, Shining Force, Shining in the Darkness, Nethack, Mordor...



[QUOTE=Xandax]My beef is however lableing games as RPG when they have little or nothing to do with being RPGs simply for the sake of marketing. That annoys me, because it messes up the perception of the genre amongst the public and then subsequently by for the producers. Just look at how many think Diablo is a RPG for instance. That has cause me much annoyance over the years [/QUOTE]
My guess is the problem arises from the fact that those games use the same, or a similar, ruleset as found in some RPG and then people proceed to conclude that it must therefore be an RPG.

[DesR85]

My apologies for bumping a thread that I haven't posted in ages. I just want to ask a question. Is the Disciples series an RPG or not? I haven't the slightest clue since it plays like a turn-based RTS when you are roaming around the game map but when you fight with an enemy, it turned into a turn-based RPG fighting mechanic where you take turns to execute attacks and plan your moves. It also includes leveling up as well. Hope I've explained clearly enough.

[fable]

A strategy series with an RPG coating. Basically, you build up the city you own with a few addons, spending your money, and then have access to better monsters to take on trips, or better spells, etc. You go to an area blocked by enemies, or attack them in their cities. Take over, repeat. Combat mechanics are primitive. Worth trying a demo, if you can find one, to see what it's like. Personally, I found it got old, very quickly.

[Masa]

Does it feature statistical character development, completing quests, learning new abilities when advancing in level?

What does the developer say it is?

Sounds to me it's somekind of rts-hybrid.

[fable]

Does it feature statistical character development, completing quests, learning new abilities when advancing in level?

There were a few stats, and at certain points you got to choose one of two (or three) directions in which that character could move. You didn't set any stats, yourself. No quests per se, just the need to take over all enemy-owned cities on a board, before moving to the next area. No new abilities, just a few new spells opening up as you gained levels. In other words, even more rote than the usual, unimaginative, rote RPGs passing for the real thing.

What does the developer say it is?

Sounds to me it's somekind of rts-hybrid.

I can't recall what the developers stated it was, since the series was created a number of years ago, enjoyed a brief burst of popularity, and then faded just as quickly when the developers pushed clones with very few improvements. I don't believe there's been a new title in a few years, but I could be wrong. I know that several of the older titles are now being sold by Stardock Systems.

Not RTS; it's not in realtime, but turn-based. I suppose it could be called a strategy/RPG hybrid, except that when think of RPGs, I think of elaborate, well-developed environments with which you can interact in depth: Ultima VI and VII (a/b) being the best examples of these. There's none of that in Disciples. Now, for a really *good*, imaginative RPG/strategy hybrid, I'd recommend King of Dragon Pass, which has a far more interesting and innovative system on both sides of the coin, from an RPG or strategic perspective.

[DesR85]

Does it feature statistical character development, completing quests, learning new abilities when advancing in level?

What does the developer say it is?

Sounds to me it's somekind of rts-hybrid.

Well, I went to Gamespot to check it out and it mentioned Fantasy Turn-Based Strategy.

A strategy series with an RPG coating. Basically, you build up the city you own with a few addons, spending your money, and then have access to better monsters to take on trips, or better spells, etc. You go to an area blocked by enemies, or attack them in their cities. Take over, repeat. Combat mechanics are primitive. Worth trying a demo, if you can find one, to see what it's like. Personally, I found it got old, very quickly.

Fable, I forgot to mention that I've played the Disciples series before. Both I&II. Yeah, its city building mechanics kind of remind me of the Heroes series when it comes to improving the main city but the difference is that you don't get numbers of units, rather, it is getting the different types of units at the start and leveling them up to the highest class rank. To me, it was kind of fun.

Thanks for the explanation, Fable.

[Monolith]

I think it all depends on whom you're asking. Ask a large publisher and you'll hear "Fast paced games with next gen graphics and...what was that...eh...stats?". Ask Bethesda and almighty Pete Hines will tell you that all you need is cool ways to kill stuff. Ask Piranha Bytes and they'll tell you that you're talking to the wrong guys 'cause Gothic 1 and 2 aren't RPGs but action-adventures with some RPG elements.

To me it's choices, consequences, character development, game play that adds to that and much interaction. Short: a niche product simply too costly to be aimed at a wide audience. Go indy everybody! Independent game development is the future of cRPG. Otherwise...consider it dead.

[DesR85]

To me it's choices, consequences, character development, game play that adds to that and much interaction. Short: a niche product simply too costly to be aimed at a wide audience. Go indy everybody! Independent game development is the future of cRPG. Otherwise...consider it dead.

Independent game developers? Just how exactly are they going to revive the RPG genre? Sorry to burst your bubble here but I don't think they'll be able to make that much of a dent in the market since their titles, in my opinion, seems to be overshadowed by a lot of the big titles out in the market.

[Monolith]

Independent game developers? Just how exactly are they going to revive the RPG genre?

By actually making RPGs. Exact enough?

Sorry to burst your bubble here but I don't think they'll be able to make that much of a dent in the market since their titles, in my opinion, seems to be overshadowed by a lot of the big titles out in the market.

You're talking about *the market*? Surely they are overshadowed by the big titles because *these* titles are developed for the market. Indies usually develop niche products. Their market is a different one. It's a small audience with different desires - desires which can't be satisfied by "the big titles". Therefore they exist. Therefore they are independent because there's no publisher insane enough to support them because he'll know that there are no millions to be made.

So, what is a revival of the RPG genre to you!? Dumping down RPGs to such an extent that they are nothing else than shiny next gen click fests with some attributes thrown in just to make the genre interesting for the average gamer? Sorry pal, but we don't need indies for that, we already have our major developers arranging this for us.

Without independent developers *that* is the future of RPGs. Generic fast paced action adventures with beautiful graphics, bland game play, bland settings, bland story, bland everything. That's what the market wants, that's where the money's at. And that's not what RPGs are about. Therefore here is no future to be found.

What I'm talking about is bringing back what RPGs used to be - not to anybody, but to those who appreciate it. There won't be a wide audience, there won't be made millions of dollars - but there will be cRPGs. Therefore I do see in that a "revival" - although it wasn't me who brought in that term. And it has already started.

[DesR85]

You're talking about *the market*? Surely they are overshadowed by the big titles because *these* titles are developed for the market. Indies usually develop niche products. Their market is a different one. It's a small audience with different desires - desires which can't be satisfied by "the big titles". Therefore they exist. Therefore they are independent because there's no publisher insane enough to support them because he'll know that there are no millions to be made.

Without independent developers *that* is the future of RPGs. Generic fast paced action adventures with beautiful graphics, bland game play, bland settings, bland story, bland everything. That's what the market wants, that's where the money's at. And that's not what RPGs are about. Therefore here is no future to be found.

What I'm talking about is bringing back what RPGs used to be - not to anybody, but to those who appreciate it. There won't be a wide audience, there won't be made millions of dollars - but there will be cRPGs. Therefore I do see in that a "revival" - although it wasn't me who brought in that term. And it has already started.

Okay. It makes sense. Always kept hearing about independant game developers in this forum. Thanks for clearing things up as I'm not familiar with it. I take back what I've said previously.

So, what is a revival of the RPG genre to you!? Dumping down RPGs to such an extent that they are nothing else than shiny next gen click fests with some attributes thrown in just to make the genre interesting for the average gamer? Sorry pal, but we don't need indies for that, we already have our major developers arranging this for us.

I'm afraid I don't have the answer to this question. Furthermore, that is not what I meant about the revival of RPGs. Sure there must be a revival but it will come in one way or the other, like independent game developers as what you've stated previously for example.