Remove this Banner Ad

Define 'RPG'

  • Thread starter Thread starter GrandBlue
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

GrandBlue

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 18, 2008
Posts
9,328
Reaction score
1,803
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur
Something that's always confused me.

RPG stands for 'Role-Playing Game', I can understand how it relates to DnD Games like Baldur's Gate & Icewind Dale (or going back further, the Ultima Games), because you're playing the role of someone, choosing their words & making their choices.

So how on Earth are games like Diablo & Pokemon classified as RPGs? You explore dungeons, fight battles, level up, find treasure etc, but how is any of that really role-playing? If you think the yes/no questions directed at the player in say, Pokemon, are enough for it to be classified as an RPG, then you could just as easily call the Mario Games RPGs too, because you're playing the 'role' of Mario, and get those same questions occasionally.

There seems to be a perception that any game that involves leveling up, equipping items & stat/skill building is an RPG, but how is any of that true role-playing?
 
The name of the classification itself is just a holdover. The early cRPG's like Wizardry and Ultima borrowed most of their general traits such as character creation, stats, dungeon exploration and a focus on equipment from Pen and Paper RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons, which I guess you could say is the purest form of role-playing in gaming. That led to many sub-genre's such as jRPGs, aRPGs, MMOrpgs and so forth who took many of their general traits from computer RPGs, and not necessarily PnP RPGs. As the genre divided up more and more, those few traits that tie them all together were classified as those of an RPG, as that is where they eventually all spawn from. The act of role-playing itself however, wasn't one of those universal traits, which when you think about it is only natural considering the text heavy nature of RPG's; It was always going to be the one genre that led the way in storytelling within games and of course that led to more traditional storytelling, which is something you can see even in those early Ultima games - The Avatar didn't show much of a personality at first, but by Ultima VII he was far from the type of 'craft your own character' that you see in the likes of Baldurs Gate.

Of course, there's a limit of how far you can go within the category. Mass Effect 1, for example clearly had enough traditional RPG elements to be classified as, at the very least, a RPG/Third Person Shooter hybrid. By the third game, however, it became very difficult to still call it an RPG, and thus many don't consider ME 2 and 3 to be RPG's.

When you think about a game like Diablo, and you start defining it step-by-step, it clearly contains a large amount of typical cRPG traits. It would have seemed odd not to refer to it as an RPG, even though the role-playing element itself is minor compared to most of those RPG's that came before it. Finally, if you consider Dungeons and Dragons and other PnP RPGs as the purest form of RPG and compare it with Mass Effect on the other end of the scale, I think it makes a bit more sense instead of taking the expanded acronym literally word for word.

I could be wrong, but that's that's my take on it.
 
The name of the classification itself is just a holdover. The early cRPG's like Wizardry and Ultima borrowed most of their general traits such as character creation, stats, dungeon exploration and a focus on equipment from Pen and Paper RPGs like Dungeons and Dragons, which I guess you could say is the purest form of role-playing in gaming. That led to many sub-genre's such as jRPGs, aRPGs, MMOrpgs and so forth who took many of their general traits from computer RPGs, and not necessarily PnP RPGs. As the genre divided up more and more, those few traits that tie them all together were classified as those of an RPG, as that is where they eventually all spawn from. The act of role-playing itself however, wasn't one of those universal traits, which when you think about it is only natural considering the text heavy nature of RPG's; It was always going to be the one genre that led the way in storytelling within games and of course that led to more traditional storytelling, which is something you can see even in those early Ultima games - The Avatar didn't show much of a personality at first, but by Ultima VII he was far from the type of 'craft your own character' that you see in the likes of Baldurs Gate.

Of course, there's a limit of how far you can go within the category. Mass Effect 1, for example clearly had enough traditional RPG elements to be classified as, at the very least, a RPG/Third Person Shooter hybrid. By the third game, however, it became very difficult to still call it an RPG, and thus many don't consider ME 2 and 3 to be RPG's.

When you think about a game like Diablo, and you start defining it step-by-step, it clearly contains a large amount of typical cRPG traits. It would have seemed odd not to refer to it as an RPG, even though the role-playing element itself is minor compared to most of those RPG's that came before it. Finally, if you consider Dungeons and Dragons and other PnP RPGs as the purest form of RPG and compare it with Mass Effect on the other end of the scale, I think it makes a bit more sense instead of taking the expanded acronym literally word for word.

I could be wrong, but that's that's my take on it.

I reckon you're pretty much spot on, mate, I couldn't have put it better.
 
I've always thought that customisation was the key. Every player being able to make their character different to the next person in regard to skills, weapons, etc.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

RPG is a pretty loose term these days - it could mean anything from a Dragon Age/Skyrim/Final Fantasy to a bordeline shooter such as Mass Effect/Fallout.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom