GameBanshee Forums

This discussion, as well as all other discussions I've seen regarding the definition of a CRPG, is going in circles and is crammed with invalid arguments. Personally, I think the reason for this, is that there is no objective, fact based definition of the concept "CRPG".

With paper & pen RPG:s, I think the definition issue is not a problem due to the interactive nature I understand this type of games have with a game-leader. It is human interaction, you play your character and you interact with other humans who play their characters, and with a game-leader who can flexibly adapt the story to the characters behaviour. However, this flexibility is obviously severely limited when you transfer this type of game to a computer with a pre-written, pre-determined story.

Again, I wish to point out the lack of core features.

Some examples:

1. You play a character who has a development that you have influence on.

True for CRPG:s and true for many other games including action games and adventure games. Setting out stat-points and choosing weapon does not make a CRPG.

2. Your actions influence the story line.

Impossible in most computer games including CRPG:s - games producers don't make a lot of different plots that differ in any major way depending on character, all you get is some minor changes is dialogue options or side quests that don't mean anything for the main story anyway.

3. You interact with NPC:s.

To a certain extent yes in CRPG:s but also in a lot of other games. Even in games like Civilisation you interact with the other leaders and your decisions affect the game somewhat.

4. You have a one-way dialogue with NPC:s to get information you need to play on and do your quests, and this gives an illusion of interaction.

True for CRPG:s and also for most adventure games and mystery games.

5. The game world is set in a fantasy/sci-fi world.

True for many non-RPG:s including both strategy games such as WoW and many different adventure games.

So what is left that is unique core features to a CRPG? Suggestions? I think it would be clarifying to this discussion if discussed not only "is this and that game a CRPG or not" but also what are the core features of a CRPG since, so far, no unique core features have been presented but still some people find it important that Diablo is not classified as a CRPG. I cannot see why this is a problem, and nobody except Xandax have even suggested a reason why it should be problematic.

[quote="Xandax]
Therein lies my beef with Diablo and Blizzard because I feel they are partly responsible for degenerating the genre with this move. [/quote"]

This is the only interesting argument I've seen for why it matters that Diablo was marketed as a CRPG. However, I'm not sure I see how Blizzard participated in this degeneration any more than other game producers.

The CRPG-genre has always included games so lousy so I'd rather read the phonebook that play those games. Before Baldurs Gate, it was however not a big industry genre (as far as I know). BG was a huge financial success, and that made the CRPG-genre attractive for exploitation. Then it went downhill.

To me, this looks like the same chain of event that has occured in many fields, computer games, music, movies or any "entertainment" genre. Blizzard jumped the RPG-hype as did many others, but I don't think Diablo has contributed more to the downfall of the genre than anyone else. I actually think Black Isle/Biioware contributed as much themselves if you look at the development of their games.
What's the reasons you think Diablo was the main culprit?

[QUOTE=DaveO]
1. The game lets you play a character that is not possible in real life. Since you can cast spells and fight creatures you'd never encounter in real life, this falls into the area of fantasy and is one requirement for a roleplaying game.[/QUOTE]
Fantasy is not a requirement for an RPG. Many(most?) of the things you do in Fallout could be done in real-life, but that doesn't make it less of an RPG.
Additionally, your arugment is frail because you can do things in extremely many non-RPG's that you can't do in real life.

[QUOTE=DaveO]
2. To a certain extent, you can control and influence the game. [/QUOTE]
No, you can't.

[QUOTE=DaveO]You're not obligated to finish any quests besides the one at the end.[/QUOTE]
Wether you finish the other quests or not, the gameworld remains unchanged, except that you might not get your 'Axe of Deadly Thunder +4'
Additionally, your character have no motivation for not doing these quests. Your character's motivation in Diablo is to kill evil beeings. You cannot choose to befriend these evil beeings.
If you could talk to Diablo and choose to ally with him and kill Tyrael instead, that would be Roleplaying, because you would have to make a choice.

[QUOTE=DaveO]3. While certain characters can perform well in one area of focus(combat or magic), you're not forced to stick with that focus. You can create warriors that use magic and wizards that fight. If this element was not in there, then you'd have more of a case for Diablo being an action game.[/QUOTE]
True, this is one of the things that make Diablo a little more RP-ish. But since it is almost the only thing, it is not enough.

[QUOTE=DaveO]
4. The only time you have to fight is either if you get mobbed at the stairs or at the end of the game. Just because the game heavily emphasizes fighting does not obligate you to play the game that way. [/QUOTE]
Not true. You HAVE to kill endless hordes of minions for no reason better than to improve your combat stats. If you do not do this, you have no chance of defeating the bosses.

[QUOTE=DaveO]
5. There are even certain rules you can impose on yourself when playing the game. An 'Ironman' game emphasizes playing with whatever equipment is available until it is destroyed. This is just one example of a play style for the game. If you checked a message board dedicated to the game, I'm sure you'd find at least a few others. [/QUOTE]
So if I played Call of Duty and always threw away my gun/rifle when it was out of ammo, that would make it more of a roleplaying-game? Hardly.

[QUOTE=DaveO]In summary my main point is that you can choose whatever role you want for a character in the game.[/QUOTE]
No, you cannot. You are stuck as a 'slayer of endless hordes of evil creatures', and have no way to change that.

[QUOTE=C Elegans][..]but still some people find it important that Diablo is not classified as a CRPG. I cannot see why this is a problem, and nobody except Xandax have even suggested a reason why it should be problematic. [..] This is the only interesting argument I've seen for why it matters that Diablo was marketed as a CRPG.[..][/QUOTE]
Well, it's just like the classic the debate: Can Spiderman beat Batman?
-Only doing it for the sake of discussion and to show your viewpoint

Edit: I just noticed Xandax has written about the same reply, albeit much shorter. oh well.

I don't think Diablo was labeled "RPG" for marketing reasons.
Other genres sell far better, especially at the time Diablo was released.
So you shouldn't consider CRPGs as something holy and other games something to look down at.

Diablo was just called CRPG because the this genre fit better than others. Action-RPG is a subgenre of RPG.

I've played the old Eye of the Beholder a bit. I never heard someone not calling it a RPG.
The only things you have to do is clicking as fast as possible for attacking or spellcasting. And you have to solve simple puzzles.
In Diablo you are at least able to develop your character skills at level-up, in the older D&D games including BG the only moment you could really develop your character's abilities was at the creation.

Many posts seem to me as if the writers made their CRPG definition from the gaming experience in BG or a similar game and the BG marketing. Anything different (no d&d rules,...) doesn't have the right to be called CRPG.

If you look at the classical or modern CRPGs there is only one thing they have in common:
You have one or more characters who start weak at the beginning and are much stronger at the end because of the experience they got mainly through fighting.
Usually there is a more or less elaborated plot you have to follow but in nearly all of the old crpgs getting stronger is the real goal, you have to earn fighting experience besides the story line. Many fights including the last one are often just a test to prove if your characters have gotten strong enough.

The non-linearity (that you can alter the story line in different ways) is not a rpg requirement, it's a modern marketing requirement. You don't get good review ratings if your game is linear any more, so in every modern crpg game there must seem to be splitted ways, mainly yielding shorter game playing time and unbalanced situatiuons.

The non-linearity of BG2 is more marketing than reality since the main plot and the main fights always stay the same. The ability to change the game world in different ways with your actions is also more marketing than reality, you only change unimportant things. It's also not specific for classical CRPGs.

kmonster wrote:I don't think Diablo was labeled "RPG" for marketing reasons.
Other genres sell far better, especially at the time Diablo was released.

True, but the point that several of us are making is that Diablo already had the action market (and Diablo is an action game) sewn up, so they didn't need to do a market blitz of it. By making it out to be something it wasn't, an RPG, its publishers were targetting a group of players that otherwise wouldn't have been drawn to it.

So you shouldn't consider CRPGs as something holy and other games something to look down at.

I'd be obliged if you can show me some places in this thread where any poster has seriously snubbed a non-RPG genre.

Diablo was just called CRPG because the this genre fit better than others. Action-RPG is a subgenre of RPG.

Only Diablo isn't an action RPG. That would fit the Gothic and Elder Scroll series. By contrast, Diablo is an action game. It has next to no traditional RPG elements, and the few that are in place are windowdressing. It's not a bad action game, by any means, and its graphics were extraordinary for their time.

In Diablo you are at least able to develop your character skills at level-up, in the older D&D games including BG the only moment you could really develop your character's abilities was at the creation.

In BG or Fallout (for example) you can choose among a variety of perks that help further tune your character's abilities as you advance. And in any case, it isn't powerups that define an RPG. I'd suggest (and so have others in this thread) that there are a variety of things involved, including the level of in-depth involvement with other characters, and hopefully with the environment as a whole. Have you ever played Planescape: Torment? What do you think of the richness of characters? Or the interactions with party members in BG2, and the way individual, strong-willed party NPCs may occasionally take control of party actions? Or the way in Ultima VII or Beyond Divinity you could interact with hundreds of environmental objects, raking up hay, for example, to form a bedroll? That's just one modest example. There are plenty of others.

The non-linearity (that you can alter the story line in different ways) is not a rpg requirement, it's a modern marketing requirement. You don't get good review ratings if your game is linear any more, so in every modern crpg game there must seem to be splitted ways, mainly yielding shorter game playing time and unbalanced situatiuons.

Really, a modern requirement? So the Wizardry, Might and Magic, Ultima, and Magic Candle series--easily the most played RPG series, all dating as far back as the early to mid 1980s--weren't focused on creating a sense of non-linearity? If you think so, you haven't played these titles, and I think we can agree that computer gaming in the 1980s was not modern, by definition. On the other hand, it seems (to me) as though many modern developers are making their RPGs more linear, since this involves putting less time into the product; if you can build a media campaign that convinces the player how bad the "old ways" were, then you can sell them something that requires less development time.

The non-linearity of BG2 is more marketing than reality since the main plot and the main fights always stay the same. The ability to change the game world in different ways with your actions is also more marketing than reality, you only change unimportant things. It's also not specific for classical CRPGs.

If it's not specific to classical CRPGs, why attack it as you do? Nor is it a matter of marketing. Simply put, a game like Ultima VII (its modern equivalent would be Oblivion, in that sense) gave you a big world in which you could wander anywhere--and might encounter much more dangerous creatures if you didn't watch yourself: pick up new quests and sub-quests, and/or engage in a variety of non-questing activities. These aren't "unimportant things," because they offer players genuine, gameplay-affecting choices. This is part of the traditional approach to computer RPGs: give choices, make it appear that the player can really take on a number of roles. You could even disregard the plot completely, if you desired. This wasn't marketing. It's in the games. Try playing them.

In BG or Fallout (for example) you can choose among a variety of perks that help further tune your character's abilities as you advance. And in any case, it isn't powerups that define an RPG. I'd suggest (and so have others in this thread) that there are a variety of things involved, including the level of in-depth involvement with other characters, and hopefully with the environment as a whole. Have you ever played Planescape: Torment? What do you think of the richness of characters? Or the interactions with party members in BG2, and the way individual, strong-willed party NPCs may occasionally take control of party actions? Or the way in Ultima VII or Beyond Divinity you could interact with hundreds of environmental objects, raking up hay, for example, to form a bedroll? That's just one modest example. There are plenty of others.

Imho it is powerups that define a game as crpg.

All the feats you mentioned and examples are typical for adventures.

If the characters wouldn't get stronger the games would be called adventures or - if fighting is involved - action-adventures.

I know no rpg where the characters don't get stronger.

So the Wizardry, Might and Magic, Ultima, and Magic Candle series--easily the most played RPG series, all dating as far back as the early to mid 1980s--weren't focused on creating a sense of non-linearity? If you think so, you haven't played these titles, and I think we can agree that computer gaming in the 1980s was not modern, by definition.

Did you read what I wrote in () after "non-linearity" ?
I played M&M and I know you couldn't really alter anything in this game. (But it's a great game.)

Simply put, a game like Ultima VII (its modern equivalent would be Oblivion, in that sense) gave you a big world in which you could wander anywhere--and might encounter much more dangerous creatures if you didn't watch yourself: pick up new quests and sub-quests, and/or engage in a variety of non-questing activities. These aren't "unimportant things," because they offer players genuine, gameplay-affecting choices. This is part of the traditional approach to computer RPGs: give choices, make it appear that the player can really take on a number of roles. You could even disregard the plot completely, if you desired. This wasn't marketing. It's in the games. Try playing them.

Seem to be rather exceptions than typical classical crpgs. The games wouldn't be outstanding if most crpgs were so.

[QUOTE=kmonster]
If the characters wouldn't get stronger the games would be called adventures or - if fighting is involved - action-adventures.

I know no rpg where the characters don't get stronger.
[/QUOTE]

Harvest Moon is an RPG like that I believe. You don't get 'stronger'. Since when does an RPG require someone to get stronger? I've never known it to be that way.

If you literally define RPG, it's a bit too general, but you play the role of your character. The games that don't give you even the slightest choice in character are not RPG's. Playing a role doesn't necessarily mean just playing someone, it means playing them YOUR way, not totally the games way.

In Diablo 1, you do have a story line to follow, but you can become a fighter, sorcerer, or rogue, which is already enough options, but wait, who says the rogue can't have spells, not Diablo 1. Thus, you can build your character anyway you want. It may be an example of getting stronger, but it's not 100% that in all RPG's.

Elder Scrolls, getting a reputation is important, which really doesn't involve getting stronger.


Well, I'm done ranting, gone too off topic as it is.

kmonster wrote:Imho it is powerups that define a game as crpg.

Okay, that's your opinion, but that's not the traditional definition of a computerized roleplaying game. If we are going to simply throw out the definition of the genre and decide to accept whatever any of us wish, there will be no grounds for discussion, much less consensus.

All the feats you mentioned and examples are typical for adventures.

You've lost me. I didn't mention any specific feats. I simply said that in BG2 and Fallout you choose at various levels a variety of perks, since you denied that BG2 allowed this. But as I continued:

I'd suggest (and so have others in this thread) that there are a variety of things involved, including the level of in-depth involvement with other characters, and hopefully with the environment as a whole. Have you ever played Planescape: Torment? What do you think of the richness of characters? Or the interactions with party members in BG2, and the way individual, strong-willed party NPCs may occasionally take control of party actions? Or the way in Ultima VII or Beyond Divinity you could interact with hundreds of environmental objects, raking up hay, for example, to form a bedroll? That's just one modest example. There are plenty of others.

So have you played any of these games, regarded as being typical but excellent in the computer roleplaying genre? You've yet to respond, here. I would also like a clarification to your remark that the people in this thread "consider CRPGs as something holy and other games something to look down at." This is a serious accusation, here on GameBanshee, where we deliberately try to avoid such hierarchies. Let's have some evidence, please, and I'll take such measures as seem warranted. If this allegation was arbitrary, I think you owe the people here an apology.

If the characters wouldn't get stronger the games would be called adventures or - if fighting is involved - action-adventures.

Again, you're creating your definitions. Adventure games began in the 1970s; Scott Adams is often credited with being the first, or at any rate, the first major designer of adventure games. (Adams, who is a very modest man, said he wasn't the first when I interviewed him last year. He did say that he thought he was the first to market an adventure game.) These are the titles that have you moving from location to location, building an inventory of objects that you apply to objects in order to unlock other locations or objects. That is the traditional definition of an adventure game, and first became attached to the genre after the 1979 Adventureland--though some think it should be related instead to the old mainframe Colossal Adventure (and Colossal Cave; it's had both names). They are sometimes divided between graphical adventure and text adventure games.

Diablo is an action title. BG2 is an RPG. Morrowind is an action RPG. All three games fit their genres fairly well. This isn't simply my saying so. Each game fits an accepted genre definition that has been around for nearly a quarter of a century, or more.

Did you read what I wrote in () after "non-linearity" ?
I played M&M and I know you couldn't really alter anything in this game. (But it's a great game.)

Did you read what I wrote in response to your referring to "unimportant things?" Being able to "change the main plot" has never been considered an important aspect of a computerized roleplaying game. Which M&M did you play? Should I assume your unfamiliarity with the other series and titles I've discussed? This would make it more difficult to discuss these definitions, as well as game content. It's a little like arguing the history of art with someone who believes it literally started with Andy Warhol in the 1960s, and isn't aware of anything earlier. So if you were to speak with them and mention, say, landscape paintings, they would respond that the only landscape paintings are exact one-tone copies of ads. That's it, and they won't acknowledge anything else.

In any case, hopefully you see now why Diablo was marketed as an RPG, when it's an action title. It had the action market pretty well sewn up. By calling it something other than it was, PR hoped to convince RPGers to spend the money on something that wasn't an RPG. It worked, with a media blitz that was more expensive and intense than any ever used previously on a PC game. This doesn't make Diablo any less fun to play, but it does reveal something about how money can control perceptions, and have ramifications long after a product has moved out of currency.

So have you played any of these games, regarded as being typical but excellent in the computer roleplaying genre? You've yet to respond, here. I would also like a clarification to your remark that the people in this thread "consider CRPGs as something holy and other games something to look down at." This is a serious accusation, here on GameBanshee, where we deliberately try to avoid such hierarchies. Let's have some evidence, please, and I'll take such measures as seem warranted. If this allegation was arbitrary, I think you owe the people here an apology.

I didn't mean to accuse anyone of considering CRPGs as something holy and other games something to look down at, I just wrote that one shouldn't do so in my original post.
The "you" wasn't targeted at a previous poster, it was meant to be used in the non-personal way.
I apologize to anyone who felt insulted by my comment.


The rpgs I've played so far are:

MM 1-7 (I thought you meant MM1 when you wrote Might and Magic)
Realms of Arkania trilogy (1-3)
Pool of Radiance & the 3 follow-ups
Gateway to/Treasures of the Savage Frontier
PoR2
Stonekeep
Phantasy Star
BG1,BG2
IwD1,IwD2

I also own and have tested the EoB trilogy, Diablo and Dungeon Hack, but stonekeep was the only action-rpg which kept me playing so far.
Although I didn't play all of the games you mentioned, I allowed myself to comment that the things you mentioned sounded more like adventures like Monkey Island than standard crpgs for me.
You usually have more interaction in adventures than in rpgs.


About rpg or non-rpg:

The way I label something as rpg or not is to think of older games which are similar and see what genre they belong to.

And Eye of the Beholder is very similar to Diablo.
You walk around and must click the attack button or spell symbols as fast as possible in realtime.
If you look at the differences Diablo has even more rpg-aspects.(more choices for character development at level up for example while the EoB riddles are not really rpg-like)

Eye of the Beholder was always called a crpg,it's sometimes even used as example for a typical rpg.

So it's very clear to me that Diablo is also a crpg.

No one called the EoB series "shoddy marketing" or "fraudulently labelled as rpg".

@Siberys: Do you know other rpgs than that you mentioned where the characters don't get stronger ?

kmonster wrote:I don't think Diablo was labeled "RPG" for marketing reasons.

I don't pretend to know Blizzard's mind so I don't know if Diablo was labelled RPG for marketing reasons or not, but I do think this discussion is interesting since I have seen similar discussions many times, but I have still not seen anyone presenting clear criteria for how to define what is an RPG and not. Instead, discussions are often coloured with people's subjective opinions (which are bound to vary a lot) and with a lot of emotional attachment to certain games.

I've played the old Eye of the Beholder a bit. I never heard someone not calling it a RPG.
The only things you have to do is clicking as fast as possible for attacking or spellcasting. And you have to solve simple puzzles.

Agreed. I never heard anyone accuse "Eye of the beholder" for being labelled an RPG for marketing reasons.

The non-linearity (that you can alter the story line in different ways) is not a rpg requirement, it's a modern marketing requirement.

Fable]Really wrote:
I haven't played exactly those game (I did play one M&M and one Ultima, but I don't remember which ones) but I did play the classical Gold Box series. Non-linerity was not an issue at the time. The Pool of Radiance-series, the Dragonlance series and whatever their names were - were all very linear and did not pretent to be otherwise. You got a quest, you solved it, you got your reward and you went on to the next quest. The label "RPG" was not connected to the issue of linearity vs non-linearity. I think the linearity-argument is a sidetrack in the question of how to define CRPG:s.

Fable] Only Diablo isn't an action RPG. That would fit the Gothic and Elder Scroll series. By contrast wrote:
This paragraph interest me for the reason that it gives the impression of an existing definition of the genres. I have asked for definitions of core features of CRPG:s without success, but I view it as a step forward if you can provide definitions for action vs action RPG at least!