Making Numbers Go Up

Originally Posted by Encyclopædia Britannica

Role-playing games are games in which players assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create stories. Players determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

********************

The second, and probably last, of Alex Kierkegaard's essays that I have posted here to discuss. Alex essentially hates JRPGs, for several perfectly valid reasons that can be found in his full essay. For now though, I would like to look at the terminology of the role playing game and it's impact on the industry.

Alex Kierkegaard is infamous in videogame journalism circles for his radical ideas and, almost as significantly, for his scathing tone, and his unceasing proclamation of his own genius in the face of what he considers rampant and all pervading idiocy in the industry as a whole. It certainly puts a lot of readers off, especially when they feel they have some sort of professional or personal stake in the industry he attacks.

Regardless, if you can get past this he has important and interesting points to make. His website can be found here, and the list of his essays on videogame culture here.

********************

The first part of his essay emphasizes the origins of the RPG (the pen and paper variety), and that number crunching was never it's focus:

D&D was about far more than stats and turn-based battles -- it was about characters, choices, and stories; it was about experiencing fantastical adventures through a brand-new kind of collaborative, improvisational storytelling. Players became at the same time script-writers and actors of their own roles; whereas a reader of a book or a viewer of a movie always remained a passive observer, a player at a D&D game was constantly called upon to make choices that propelled the action. Compared to the role-playing dimension of D&D, the stats and battles were only minor aspects.

...

And the reason for this dependence on rules is simple. In RPGs rules are necessary in order to set up a framework, with the help of which the gamemaster can evaluate the players' actions and arrive at or decide on their consequences. Because even though the players' adventures often take place in wonderfully bizarre universes, these universes still have to make some kind of sense -- they still have to obey some sort of logic, otherwise players would quickly lose interest in adventures steered by a gamemaster based on nothing more than random whims.

...

Yet from the very beginning of computer role-playing games (CRPGs) it was clear that the stat-recording and incessant battles were the only things that could possibly survive the transition to the electronic medium, and that nothing short of the invention of human-level artificial intelligence could change that.

Without the presence of human minds, filled with creativity to breath life into the game, how could the soul of the role playing adventure exist?

What chance would the players have to make decisions and act them out -- in other words, to role-play -- if they were denied the ability to express themselves, and if their actions were limited to inventory-management, battle tactics, and wandering around static maps? The quality of the RPG experience had from the very first depended on the ability, talent and dedication of the gamemaster, and some dumb computer program was indeed a pitiful substitute for a Gary Gygax or an Ed Greenwood.

All this was of course instantly recognized by the pioneers of CRPGs, who, being programmers, were well aware of the limitations of the primitive software engineering techniques available to them.

And so they focused on the stats and battles.

The early role playing games thus contained little role playing, and games like Akalabeth and Dungeons of Daggorath, though based on the similar rulesets to D&D, can only be described as dungeon crawlers, as they contained no role playing elements.

But since early D&D modules themselves consisted of little more besides dungeon crawling, the pioneers of CRPGs could at least claim that their games managed to capture to a degree the spirit of those early modules. The computer gaming world -- such as it was at the time -- could hardly be blamed for praising their efforts.

Unfortunately, those early efforts would end up setting the tone for all subsequent ones.

...

Before long, CRPGs had become something of a joke in the role-playing community, whereas in computer gaming circles the term "RPG" had been debased to a euphemism for a genre that contained a varying mixture of strategy, action, and adventure elements -- everything, that is to say, except role-playing.

And here is something , personally, have always agreed with. I have always described, say, Final Fantasy, as an Adventure game, or, at a push, and focusing on the battle side of things, and really bad strategy game. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Let's look back to the dawn of the JRPG, because-

-in Japan, meanwhile, things were proceeding in a most amusing direction.

The key to understanding the debacle that are modern JRPGs is to realize that role-playing took ages to arrive in Japan, and was largely ignored even when it did. D&D took almost a decade to be brought over, at which point the Japanese had already been playing western-made dungeon crawlers for several years.

That fact alone explains everything. You see Western developers have always been aware of the nature of role-playing, so at least they've always known what they should be aiming for.

But the Japanese designers who set out to make their own CRPGs had no such understanding. They played Wizardry and other early dungeon-crawlers, and then sat down in smoke-filled izakayas and exclaimed, "So this is what a role-playing game is then!"

And off they went to do what the Japanese do best.

Hydlide (1984) and Courageous Perseus (1985), the first Japanese CRPGs (hereafter referred to as JRPGs), were quickly followed by Dragon Quest (1986) and Final Fantasy (1987), the huge success of the latter effectively dooming the genre in Japan for decades. Had player reaction to these first efforts been unfavorable, their designers would have sat back and re-examined their choices; perhaps they would eventually have sought out and studied the second- or third-generation Western CRPGs (which were already starting to move away from dungeon crawling by offering the player the occasional choice), and things would have likely turned out very differently. But since no one involved -- neither designers nor players -- knew the first thing about RPGs (even the term "role-playing" itself affording them no clue as to the nature of these games, since most Japanese don't speak English), and since Dragon Questand Final Fantasy had much to recommend them despite their not being RPGs, that was the end of the story. They kept selling, and so they kept getting made. The extremely risk-averse corporate policies of Japanese publishers such as Square, Enix and the rest of them (many of which were practically built on the success of their early JRPGs), have been efficiently crushing any hopes of a change ever since.

And there was never a question of these games evolving to overcome their humble origins, as happened in the West. Western CRPGs have kept evolving because there has always existed consciousness of a direction towards which to evolve; JRPGs, meanwhile, have been going round in circles ever since their inception -- Fallout is worlds away fromAkalabeth; not so Lost Odyssey from Final Fantasy.

Alex goes on to discuss why MMORPGs are both more and less then their pen and paper counterparts, his hatred of the JRPG, and the bright future of the CRPG.

********************

But let's focus on the terminology for a moment (maybe we'll look at what else he has to say later in the thread, or in a new thread altogether):

Now, the range of genres we have in video games are unhelpful at best, and a confusing and convoluted mess the rest of the time. The idea that an RPG is anything that has stats and level ups is considered an RPG, when in reality there is far more similar between Final Fantasy and a game like Zelda then there ever is between Final Fantasy and Fallout, but not only do we connect the two with the term RPG (JRPG, WRPG, SRPG, and so on as if they each had anything at all in common), we separate two game that are in essentially the same genre.

Genre is supposed to categorize works of a similar nature, for the convenience of those with an interest in the medium (whether it be for the purpose of criticism, discussion, analysis, or consumer friendliness); pandering to this rubbish is the opposite of genre. It is anti-genre.

It gets worse when it leaks onto other genres, and we start calling games [genre]-RPGs, because they have levels and stats. In what way is Castlevania role playing, for example, yet it is almost always described as and adventure-RPG by it's fans. Why is Crisis Core an RPG and Devil May Cry an action game, because the differences between the two aren't all that great (other then DMC beings a good game). Is it because the former was made by Square Enix and the later, not? Or is it because the stats are visible in one game and not the other?

In short, role playing is not stats.

Discuss.

*clap*
*clap*
*clap*

I can't do anything else but to agree, after playing pen & paper RPG, and noticing how insanely different it was from the RPG genre in video games, it feels like the RPG label is absolutely wrong, but it can't be helped, it's already stapled, and even if most gamers and developers in the world were to agree that RPG is incorrect, it would still remain being used for the same, a title to "number raising" games, and nothing more.

For something different to say, real RPGs are quite possible as a video game, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines does a good job on it, you select your type of character wich gives you access to different skills (not necesarily combat based), and you can go through the game any way you want, persuading other characters, intimidating them, killing them, or whatever, and different choices are "unlocked" depending on how you play, giving access to different endings. The game is still slightly linear, but does an excellent job in tricking you to believe it's heavily open. Actually, it's very similar to the real pen & paper version of it, except you go through a set storyline instead of there being a storyteller improvising it.

Originally Posted by Sam

In short, role playing is not stats.

Nor is it when you're given a collection of forced choices that are either "HEY LET'S BE GOOD" or "HEY LET'S BE EVIL" at pivotal plot points with no attempt at subtlety while the majority of the game is railroaded, nor is it when you're given the illusion of choice by playing a sandbox game with plenty of poorly-programmed, buggy optional content while none of your choices aside from "OOPS I KILLED THIS GUY MY BAD" have any affect on plot progression (And even then, in the case of Bethesda sandbox "RPGs," killing random NPCs usually only hinders your ability to do certain sidequests; again, sure, you're given alot to choose from, but whatever you choose is going to be railroaded in the end).

Sure, Final Fantasy isn't an RPG, but neither are Fable, Mass Effect (Which I'm a big fan of, by the way), Fallout 3, and the vast majority of so-called "WRPGs." There really aren't any modern "RPGs," J or W, that provide a complete role-playing experience. Maybe some older games like Fallout 1 and 2 or some of the classic BioWare games offered that experience, but that was then and this is now. And even then, the RP experiences in those games paled in comparison to actual role-playing. Until "true" A.I. is implemented in video games, a full role-playing experience comparable to what larpers do on a daily basis will be impossible.

Genre is supposed to categorize works of a similar nature, for the convenience of those with an interest in the medium (whether it be for the purpose of criticism, discussion, analysis, or consumer friendliness); pandering to this rubbish is the opposite of genre. It is anti-genre.

Trying to fit a game in to a genre mold is stupid to begin with as it stifles creative freedom. The best course of action wouldn't be to "purify" genre labels, but to encourage people to stop caring about them so much.

On a side note, it sounds as if the guy who wrote that article hasn't played a Final Fantasy game since the 90s. Final Fantasy X, XII and XIII are all very different games from eachother and their predecessors in terms of gameplay style (And even then, just because a game is command-based doesn't mean it's "the same" or signifies a "lack in evolution;" FFVIII, FFVII and FFIV all had very different feels when placed side-by-side). The whole thing reads like he doesn't have a clue about the very thing he hates, which sorta makes the opinion expressed invalid.

First, Critical Distance yesterday published their weekly list of the best videogame articles around the web, and, fittingly, I was linked to The Escapists exploration of the differences of WJPRG characters and JRPG character, which, in the process of making some valid comparisons between Japanese and American culture, proceeds to completely miss the point.

This is important, because it outlines how labelling both genres as RPGs is confusing and leads to misunderstandings such as this one. The sad thing is that the author actually describes in what way JRPGs are not to be considered role playing, but fails to recognise the point he is making and continues to treat them as if they are.

Originally Posted by Andross

Sure, Final Fantasy isn't an RPG, but neither are Fable, Mass Effect (Which I'm a big fan of, by the way), Fallout 3, and the vast majority of so-called "WRPGs." There really aren't any modern "RPGs," J or W, that provide a complete role-playing experience. Maybe some older games like Fallout 1 and 2 or some of the classic BioWare games offered that experience, but that was then and this is now. And even then, the RP experiences in those games paled in comparison to actual role-playing. Until "true" A.I. is implemented in video games, a full role-playing experience comparable to what larpers do on a daily basis will be impossible.

Well, yeah, actually, this is what he said, but he stresses that WPRGs have come far closer to reaching the ideal CRPG then JRPGs ever have, which is 100% true. His conclusion is that MMORPGs are the only real CRPGs, but have their own downfalls:

But the beauty of UO's [Ultima Online's] approach was that it completely eliminated the fundamental problem of CRPGs, this being the impossibility of creating an A.I. capable enough to convincingly take up the duties of the gamemaster. Because if virtually all the characters surrounding each player were other players (excepting a few shopkeepers, city guards, etc.) there would be no need for a gamemaster to control them. Free from the constraints of the dialogue trees and pre-scripted events of traditional CRPGs, players could say exactly what they felt like saying in the manner they chose to say it, and be assured of receiving a rational (or irrational, as was the case!) and completely spontaneous response. This was 100% pure role-playing, and for a moment it seemed to be the future.

That moment didn't last very long.

Because it quickly became apparent that simply by throwing several thousand players into an otherwise barren fantasy setting was not enough to guarantee that Tolkien-like epics would spring out of nowhere, and sweep players into the kinds of adventures that Gary Gygax et al. had in mind when they first created RPGs. So yes, the role-playing part was as perfect as anyone could hope for (that is to say the game facilitated no-holds-barred conversation; whether players chose to take advantage of this was another thing altogether -- eventually, special servers would be set aside for those so inclined), but RPG fans soon discovered that in a world in which everyone was an adventurer there could be no adventures worth pursuing.

And that the only single player game that could be described as such is Deus-Ex, and that that, not Crisis Core, is the epitome of the Action-RPG.

(Though, I haven't played Vampire the Masquerade, as Khao recommended; I'm sure there are other games that come as close as Deux Ex that have simply been overlooked)

On the subject of larpers, seeing as you brought it up:

It is important to realize the fundamental difference between an action game and an RPG. In an action game, the player's character is ultimately as capable in performing tasks as the player himself. If you can't physically line up the crosshairs with your enemies in an FPS you'll never be able to kill them. If your reflexes are not up to the task of dodging bullets in STGs or fireballs in fighting games, you will never manage to get very far with them. But in an RPG you could be a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic, and still controlling all kinds of fully-functioning human (or inhuman!) beings -- from regular Joes to veritable supermen. Hence pure role-playing games are controlled completely by the player's mind, and the only human ability that is being tested is that of decision-making. This is how ALL real-life RPGs work, with the exception of some extreme forms of live-action role-playing, in which players physically hit each other with kicks, punches and all kinds of fake (or sometimes even real!) weapons. These latter ones are NOT considered pure role-playing games, hence the "live-action" label.

Originally Posted by Andross

Trying to fit a game in to a genre mold is stupid to begin with as it stifles creative freedom. The best course of action wouldn't be to "purify" genre labels, but to encourage people to stop caring about them so much.

I agree that the restrictive conventions of "genre" run against the very idea of artistic expression but it's only an issue to the artists; when they start aiming to fall into a genre for whatever reason (creative deficiency, aim to appeal to an existing market, ect), then they cease to be artists at all. But it's those developers that we need to worry the least about anyway, as they are the ones destined to failure.

To the audience of the games (or music, or movie, or literature) they need only be used as a convenience of language (if we didn't use the names of genres, we would only say things like "games in which you shoot things in the first person" instead of FPS (though, for the record, FPS is also a stupid-as-**** genre name)) or a means of categorization. So the best course of actions is simply to be flexible with genre, to understand and allow for the creations of new genres, and so on. Not to judge games as if genre was absolute (it might be a bad FPS when compared to its FPS peers, but a good game for other reasons).

But for genre to satisfy even this basic, basic purpose of convenience, the labels themselves have to make sense.

One last thing I forgot to add to the opening post:

Originally Posted by Alex

How long can this inanity go on for? For how much longer will we have to put up with trashy, infantile strategy games getting shoved in our faces and touted as the latest and greatest "RPGs"? And don't even think of telling me that this is a trivial issue of naming conventions -- the problem could not possibly be more immediate and real. We'd have hundreds of Deus Exes by now if the term "RPG" hadn't been debased to virtual meaninglessness. If players do not one day start asking for real CRPGs they will never get them, except perhaps once a decade or so as happened with Deus Ex, after the necessary cattle sacrifices have been performed according to the rituals prescribed by the village elders, and when the stars in the northern sky align as foretold by the prophecies handed down to us by the ancients. For lovers of real RPGs who long to see -- within their lifetime -- what can be accomplished through the power of digital computing, hoping and praying would seem to be all that's left to us.

Originally Posted by Sam

Well, yeah, actually, this is what he said, but he stresses that WPRGs have come far closer to reaching the ideal CRPG then JRPGs ever have, which is 100% true.

Only by a little bit, however. I mean, if JRPGs in general get a 17 at being RPGs and WRPGs get a 41 at being RPGs, in the end, they're both getting an "F" grade.

I have not played a modern WRPG that offered a true role-playing experience. Fable, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, Oblivion, what have you only offer minimal choices with little actual living out the character.

And, on a side-note, I highly doubt the goal of JRPG developers (Such as the folks behind Final Fantasy) is to provide the ideal RP experience in the first place. Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest have their intended audiences (Which are quite large), and most of the games in those two franchises generally receive widespread critical acclaim upon launch while being fondly talked of for years after. That is because, despite them not being true RPGs, they're still well-made games on an objective level that provide highly enjoyable experiences to those who are interested in them.

On the subject of larpers, seeing as you brought it up:

His definition of role-playing is stupid and makes no sense whatsoever. Role-playing games are not purely a test of decision-making skill (Under that definition, then most combat-heavy JRPGs would be considered RPGs; after all, the combat is usually less about action and more about decision-making), and that's the primary problem with the vast majority of modern WRPGs (k' we gotta add some role-playin' in to our sandbox gayem; give this guy the ability to be a nice guy or a dick, that should work). People can't seem to understand the difference between living a character and mere decision-making, and that's why we don't have more games like Deus Ex. JRPGs aren't to blame, as they've always been a niche category anyway; the reason we don't have many great WRPGs is because of the WRPG fanbase itself, which has simplified the definition of RPG to "a game where you make choices" or "a game where you create your own character."

Role-playing is just that: playing out a role, acting as a character. A role-playing game is when you're doing that but in pursuit of particular objectives. Because of that, larping isn't some lesser form of RPG; in fact, larping is probably the purest form of the RPG, if we're going strictly by definition (And I assume we are, because you're stressing terminology), because people are actually acting out their characters in their epic quest.

His definition of role playing is perfect. Action games rely on a players reflexes, strategy/puzzle games rely on a players intelligence; role playing relies on those, and other, traits of the character, not yourself. Your decisions effect your character, and your character effects your success. That's why in pen and paper RPGs you have skills like language, lore, lockpicking, whatever; you don't actually know these skills, but your decisions mean that your character does, and that in turn will have an effect on how you handle situations in the game. Hence, you are taking up a role. A 50% chance for one person is a 50% chance for another, assuming they played the same role.

Otherwise literally everything is role playing. If Half Life you "act" as Gordon Freeman, hence, roleplaying? No, of course not. If we're going to resolve the mess of genres we deal with at the moment, we have to have sensible definitions, and this is one that resolves that issues well, because now you can't recommend to someone Final Fantasy who enjoyed Mass Effect, because they are not both RPGs.

Now I've never larped, but though you get the advantage of actually moving as your character does (and, other then perhaps dressing up, this is the only advantage it seems to offer, and in pen and paper RPGs you are in theory doing just as much acting), how fast your can run, how quickly you can react or how well you can see is down to your own abilities, not that of your character. Hence-

-in an RPG you could be a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic, and still controlling all kinds of fully-functioning human (or inhuman!) beings -- from regular Joes to veritable supermen.

(as I say, I've never larped; I'm taking it to be pretty much a glorified game of tag)

JRPG battles are on their own strategy games, because it is down to your intelligence whether or not you succeed. Now RPGs can contain strategy elements, as much as they can contain puzzle elements are action elements, but without the dynamic characters as described above, and dynamic stories, you cannot describe it as role playing. As Alex said, "Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy had much to recommend them", but they are not RPGs. They are adventure-strategy (though, honestly, the strategy element is awful most of the time).

For the record though, I disagree that Fallout and Mass Effect are not far better RPGs then FF. I don't want to argue specifics, and get into a never ending quote war of needless technicalities and overly specific examples for each title, but as far as I am concerned they meet the specification above and I would probably describe them as adventure-RPGs.

Originally Posted by Sam

His definition of role playing is perfect. Action games rely on a players reflexes, strategy/puzzle games rely on a players intelligence; role playing relies on those, and other, traits of the character, not yourself. Your decisions effect your character, and your character effects your success. That's why in pen and paper RPGs you have skills like language, lore, lockpicking, whatever; you don't actually know these skills, but your decisions mean that your character does, and that in turn will have an effect on how you handle situations in the game. Hence, you are taking up a role. A 50% chance for one person is a 50% chance for another, assuming they played the same role.

That's not what "role-playing game" is officially defined as, though, as I already pointed out. He's essentially coming up with a new definition for the "RPG," and as such, he's contributing to the same problem that the RPG genre is already suffering from; terminology confusion. The only way to "purify" the RPG genre is to return to what the term originally meant; otherwise, we'll just wind up with another meaningless term like "JRPG" or "WRPG" or what have you.

Role-playing is when you step in to the shoes of a character; a role-playing game is when you step in to the shoes of a character and affect a fictional world through your actions in pursuit of an objective. A game can have skills such as language, lockpicking, or whatever but that doesn't mean it will be a role-playing game (Because, in the end, those are just stats).

Role-playing is determined by how your actions affect the game world, and as it stands, most WRPGs don't allow you to have a profound effect on the game world (Unless it was planned out beforehand by the writers, and in that case, it wasn't your actions that affected the world, but the writers').

Otherwise literally everything is role playing. If Half Life you "act" as Gordon Freeman, hence, roleplaying?

No, you don't act/step in to the shoes of Gordon Freeman because the game's plot is linear and your input has no affect on the course it takes.

A plot that is as railroaded as Half-Life's couldn't possibly be considered an RPG plot. Half-Life is an FPS featuring a silent protagonist whose adventure is experienced, not molded.

If we're going to resolve the mess of genres we deal with at the moment, we have to have sensible definitions, and this is one that resolves that issues well, because now you can't recommend to someone Final Fantasy who enjoyed Mass Effect, because they are not both RPGs.

Of course, and that's why I provided a perfectly sensible (Not to mention technically correct) definition of the role-playing game. As demonstrated, your Half-Life rebuttal doesn't hold weight against my definition of the RPG (Which is, again, technically the correct, historical and official definition) as Half-Life doesn't fit the genre definition, nor does Mass Effect or Final Fantasy.

As far as I'm concerned, Final Fantasy is a Tactical Adventure Game, Mass Effect is a Third-Person Shooter and Half-Life is an FPS. As for true video RPGs, there really aren't many of them.

Now I've never larped, but though you get the advantage of actually moving as your character does (and, other then perhaps dressing up, this is the only advantage it seems to offer, and in pen and paper RPGs you are in theory doing just as much acting), how fast your can run, how quickly you can react or how well you can see is down to your own abilities, not that of your character. Hence-

(as I say, I've never larped; I'm taking it to be pretty much a glorified game of tag)

...no, that's incorrect. First off, that's going by his (Technically incorrect) definition of role-playing, but I already addressed that; I'm going to point out how you're misunderstanding larpers.

Live-Action Role-Playing is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of different playstyles. It isn't just combat-focused (Although some larpers may very well focus solely on combat and base their rules around that); often, it's merely used for the sake of immersion.

A good way to put it is that a guy who is wearing a t-shirt and jeans that is sitting at a table rolling dice with friends is role-playing, but a guy who is wearing a wizarding robe while speaking in some sort of medieval fantasy voice that is sitting at a table rolling dice with friends and then getting up and acting out combat whenever it takes place is REALLY role-playing.

As Alex said, "Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy had much to recommend them", but they are not RPGs. They are adventure-strategy (though, honestly, the strategy element is awful most of the time).

How so, though? I already pointed out how Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy receive critical acclaim the vast majority of the time; that is, essentially, because they are not awful adventure-strategy games but quality adventure-strategy games that provide hours of entertainment for those who are interested.

For the record though, I disagree that Fallout and Mass Effect are not far better RPGs then FF.

Again, a 41 is far better than a 17, but it's still an F.

The meaning behind words changes from decade to decade. I've never played D&D or any other table-top RPG. When I think RPG, I am always going to think of Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, and maybe the Elder Scroll series as well. I really do wanna try some more traditional RPG's to get a taste for how different they are from JRPG's.

The only definition you have provided is this:

Originally Posted by Andross

Role-playing is just that: playing out a role, acting as a character. A role-playing game is when you're doing that but in pursuit of particular objectives.

So why isn't Half Life a role playing game, again? You're playing the role of Gordon Freeman, you're acting as the character, you are pursuing an objective.

It is your definition that is open to abuse, and it is Alex's that considers the history of the term and places it sensibly into the context of videogame genre.

The only thing you have done is link to a dictionary.com page, as if that was helpful, the definition on which would mean every game on earth is an RPG, and then added clauses to that definition such as "non-linear" to dismiss games that obviously are not RPGs when I've brought them up. In your original definition, Half Life was without a doubt an RPG, and so was Grand theft Auto, Super Mario, and Puzzle Bobble.

So you're making a very confused an inconsistent statement here.

I'm also really not sure why you don't consider Fallout 3 an RPG, according to your "definition". Is it because it has an ending? Because even pen and paper RPGs have a goal. How you get to that ending in Fallout is completely up to you. Your actions always have an effect on the story- usually small contained effects yes, but even they contribute to the development of your character which has a long term effect. Mass Effect too; yeah, the Good/Evil thing might be role-playing-for-nine-year-olds, but it's still role playing, even according to your definition. No, they're not the same as pen and paper RPGs, we can both agree on that, but they're closer then you give them credit for.

I never said Final Fantasy was a bad game, I said it's strategy element was ****. And it is. Even if your usual tactic of attack-attack-potion-attack temporarily does not work, you can just run back a few paces, fight some green slimes (or usually a lot of green slimes), and then it will. Sometimes the fundamentals are there, like in X, but even there you only ended up using five different attacks, and not in any tactical order other then heal{when: health = <20%}. Even fans agree that the battles systems of JRPGs are not "the point", and pale in comparison to games such as Fire Emblem, or Valkyria Chronicles, or KotOR, or DotA, or whatever. I'm a fan of Final Fantasy and think the battle system is arbitrary and unbalanced, and doesn't offer any opportunity for strategic thinking.

Originally Posted by Sam

The only definition you have provided is this:



So why isn't Half Life a role playing game, again? You're playing the role of Gordon Freeman, you're acting as the character, you are pursuing an objective.

I already explained why. You aren't truly living as the character because you're not having an effect on the plot in question. If you were truly role-playing as the character, you could hijack the plot and go where you want from there.

It is your definition that is open to abuse, and it is Alex's that considers the history of the term and places it sensibly into the context of videogame genre.

No it isn't, though. You're misunderstanding my definition; again, the Half-Life example doesn't fit my definition because you aren't truly living the character.

His definition is more or less made up and doesn't reflect the core of what an RPG is; it more or less places an emphasis on "having a large amount of choice" when that isn't necessarily what role-playing is about.

The only thing you have done is link to a dictionary.com page, as if that was helpful, the definition on which would mean every game on earth is an RPG, and then added clauses to that definition such as "non-linear" to dismiss games that obviously are not RPGs when I've brought them up. In your original definition, Half Life was without a doubt an RPG, and so was Grand theft Auto, Super Mario, and Puzzle Bobble.

That doesn't apply; again, you're misunderstanding the definition here, as you're not viewing the definition in the correct context. There is a very big difference between "controlling a character in gameplay" and "adopting the role of a character" (Or "living" a character).

In DnD, you adopt the role of an imaginary character. In Super Mario, you merely control how he moves.

So you're making a very confused an inconsistent statement here.

I'm not.

How you get to that ending in Fallout is completely up to you.

In Fallout, probably; in Fallout 3, no.

Your options are "continue the main plot" or "don't continue the main plot."

That is not "completely up to you."

Your actions always have an effect on the story- usually small contained effects yes, but even they contribute to the development of your character which has a long term effect.

Not really, no. Sure, you can convince someone to not fight you here and there or something like that, but the main story is going to be the same for everyone. You are always going to complete the same missions and confront the same baddies; there are no branching paths at all. You're never creating the story; you're always experiencing it.

Mass Effect too; yeah, the Good/Evil thing might be role-playing-for-nine-year-olds, but it's still role playing, even according to your definition.

No, it's not. You're not living as Shepard. All of the choices are laid out before you; there is no improvising on the part of the player involved.

A true role-playing experience would involve subtle actions/decisions on the player's part that aren't wholly obvious on the player's part but have results that manifest themselves in the game's plot as it progresses.

If RPG developers truly wish to create RPGs, then they must abandon dialogue wheels/whatever where you're given a set amount of choices, with those being the only input you have on the game's plot. Choices should be far more subtle; as in, if you shoot up a bathroom early on in the game, you'll see a disgruntled janitor mumbling about having to clean up the mess later on, or if you accidentally kill this scientist guy while defending yourself from ninjas (Or something), later on in the game, you can't save your best friend because you don't have the antidote (Which would have been developed by the scientist you accidentally shot) to his hyper-AIDs or something.

Video game developers think gamers are retarded, and that's why they keep on making your "choices" painfully obvious; they stick out like a sore thumb, when they really shouldn't.

And it is. Even if your usual tactic of attack-attack-potion-attack temporarily does not work, you can just run back a few paces, fight some green slimes (or usually a lot of green slimes), and then it will.

I have never played a Final Fantasy game that is as easy as "attack-potion-attack-potion," and I've played all of them.

Sometimes the fundamentals are there, like in X, but even there you only ended up using five different attacks, and not in any tactical order other then heal{when: health = <20%}. Even some fans agree that the battles systems of JRPGs are not "the point", and pale in comparison to games such as Fire Emblem, or Valkyria Chronicles, or KotOR, or DotA, or whatever.

I fixed that for you, because not all fans think of JRPGs in that way. Go to any Final Fantasy discussion board; you're bound to find people talking about materia builds for FFVII, class set-ups for FFV or gambit builds for FFXII. There's alot more strategy involved in the FF series than you think; sure, you don't always have to use strategy, but it's not as if the games never require it (Late-game bosses, as well as the always incredibly challenging optional super-bosses), and when you do use strategy, the games are generally very rewarding.

I'm a fan of Final Fantasy and think the battle system is arbitrary and unbalanced, and doesn't offer any opportunity for strategic thinking.

Then I'd say that you're exaggerating.

How do you define "living"? Is "living" different to plain old "living"?

I'm not misunderstanding the definition, I'm intentionally interpreting it badly to demonstrate how flawed it is.

You can't hijack the plot in Half Life because of all these damn knee high walls that get in your way; in RPGs you can't hijack the plot outside of what the gamemaster allows anyway, so can Half Life be an RPG now?

Again you're working with vague definitions, and scales. So what if there weren't two moral dimensions in Mass Effect, but 5, or 19? Would it be an RPG then? Is labelling something an RPG down purely to how "subtle" it is? How do you measure subtly, and how subtle does a game have to be to be an RPG?

(When it gets 1000 sbtl pnts does it lvlup to RPG, lololololololololol no)

Alex hasn't "made up" any definition, he has simply clarified a definition, and explained how it works in the context of game genres.

Of course, his definition was never about having large amounts of choice (perhaps you need to re-read some of my posts), but for all I can see that's exactly what yours is about;

If you were truly role-playing as the character, you could hijack the plot and go where you want from there.

All of the choices are laid out before you; there is no improvising on the part of the player involved.

So... what's all that about?

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa wait on a second here. Final Fantasy 12 doesnt have any tactics??? are you kidding me? You have to set up all of your gambits in the right way constantly to adjust to the given enemies (in reality mostly only bosses) in the varying environments. Especially in the later optional bosses which have... i think 99 million life or something. That is pure tactics, even if it isnt on demand constant tactics changing of final fantasty 13.

Originally Posted by ibLeo

IMO, the way forward to encourage a player to be more "in character" is to give characters needs, like in the Sims. You set your types of needs and desires when you create the character and then you can't just do the usual "I'll be a saint one minute and a devil the next" tomfoolery; you have to stay in character. Perhaps if we also used Fire Emblem's Rapport System whereby if two characters spend enough time together, they develop a rapport and their enhanced teamwork means that they gain bonuses to their stats when near each other - BUT with the drawback that their company becomes a new "need" whose gauge must be kept relatively full or the character gets depressed from missing their friends and their stats drop drastically.

There could even be a sanity gauge, perhaps, whereby when you continually neglect your character's needs and desires, they go crazy. That way you can't just befriend random NPCs for a while and then randomly kill them later, because your character will be fond of them and murdering them will cause insanity which, although not technically permanent if you return to acting in character, it WILL leave lasting scars on you and maybe your character will randomly suffer from relapses even if you don't do anything else wrong.

There are plenty of ways to enforce a sense of character.

The game I mentioned earlier attempts something like this, you have a "humanity" level, wich goes from 1 to 10, if you kill an innocent human or are extremely cruel to another being, the level will drop, and can only be regained back by performing good deeds, but the opportunities are quite rare. The thing is, that with less humanity, your dialog choices will be much more limited, and will often come as very violent and insane, easily making NPCs scared of you, losing valuable information, or items, or wathever.

For example, there's a point of the game where you have to infiltrate a private family party, a good way is to try to persuade a family member out of the party to give you his invitation, there are various ways to do so, from passing off as a pitiful person who lost his invitation, to make his wife fight with him. With a low humanity, your choices are mostly limited to "give me a ****ing invitation or I kill you and everyone else in here."

Originally Posted by Sam

How do you define "living"? Is "living" different to plain old "living"?

Living the character is becoming the character. If you're truly "living" a character, then the character is a representation of your mind, not set choices that are laid about before you.

I'm not misunderstanding the definition, I'm intentionally interpreting it badly to demonstrate how flawed it is.

You're intentionally interpreting it badly because you're missing the point and assuming I'm just talking about making games with a large amount of choices.

You can't hijack the plot in Half Life because of all these damn knee high walls that get in your way; in RPGs you can't hijack the plot outside of what the gamemaster allows anyway, so can Half Life be an RPG now?

Again, you're missing the point; sure, the gamemaster places limitations on what you can do, but for the most part, good gamemasters allow players to shape the plot as it progresses and adapts to what they decide to do. If a gamemaster plans out a strict set of choices beforehand, then the game is being railroaded and he isn't being a good gamemaster.

Again you're working with vague definitions, and scales. So what if there weren't two moral dimensions in Mass Effect, but 5, or 19? Would it be an RPG then? Is labelling something an RPG down purely to how "subtle" it is? How do you measure subtly, and how subtle does a game have to be to be an RPG?

(When it gets 1000 sbtl pnts does it lvlup to RPG, lololololololololol no)

I'm not being vague; it's clear that role-playing, in the sense that I'm talking about, relies on player improvisation. There is no improvisation allowed in Mass Effect; only the set moral choices you are given along the way.

That's what I'm getting at; choices shouldn't be handed to you on a silver platter, because that isn't role-playing. Role-playing is coming up with new ways to change the direction of the plot; video RPGs can't possibly do that, so they can't possibly be considered "true" RPGs. Older WRPGs were able to fake a feeling of player improvisation by providing a wide variety of subtle choices, but as the genre has moved more and more in to a direction focusing on combat and pretty visuals, that element has been lost.

Furthermore, true RPGs won't be possible until, again, true A.I. is implemented in video games, allowing games to adapt to the player.

Alex hasn't "made up" any definition, he has simply clarified a definition, and explained how it works in the context of game genres.

No, he deliberately changed the definition to suit his opinion. I'm the one clarifying the definition, here.

Oh, so it's all about "becoming", now, also in italics? What does that even mean? "Representation of your mind"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? You clearly don't have a point for me to miss, and you're certainly not clarifying anything, for you or for anyone reading. I'm only "assuming" exactly what you have told me.

I've lost interest in your tenuous grasp on semantics.

On the subject of your game ideas, by the way ibLeo; though each were great ideas, for sure, they're flawed. Sure, when it is as (literally) two dimensional as Good/Evil, you can make measure to prevent a player switching between the two, though most games already have this in that they only reward you if your Good/Evil rating is high, so once you start getting points in one area you are compelled to continue. This is reinforced in Mass Effect were Renegade points open Renegade choices that give more Renegade points. Once you start you've got no reason not to continue on that path, and often it is the only path open to you.

I actually feel this is anti-role-playing. The computer is having as much as say in your decisions as you are.

Moreover, the computer could never allow for all character types; the computer might punish you for what it sees as acting out of character, though in your mind your character is just more nuanced then the computer had allowed for.

In the end, the most important decision is your decision to role play to begin with, and if you're not capable of stepping into a role without the computer pushing you into it, maybe you should be playing another game.

In fact, what you suggested seem more suited to a JRPG game where the characters are pre-assigned; it would be your job to interpret the characters you are given based on what you know of them (it's not as if JRPG characters aren't typically very nuanced anyway, so this shouldn't be overly difficult). Your knowledge of your character (eg. pairing a character with his friend in battle, ect) is rewarded with stat bonuses. I also think it's a nice way to tie story and gameplay together, two aspects usually kept miles apart in this genre.

Nice ideas, though. You seem to be full of them

Okay, just to clarify, why can't you beat you wife to death with a spade and jump on the next broad that comes you way in Fable? Is it because no woman will go near you because you still have her blood on your forehead, or is it because you have two weeks of compulsory erectile dysfunction whilst you sit down and think about what you've done?

The world responding to your character's actions is a sign of a good RPG, but I still think if the computer is giving you a penalty for killing someone you've battled with a lot because it has interpreted you as friends with him, when in reality you were just hanging around with him to gain his trust so he can tell you the location of a top secret weapon you would like and in reality you hate his guts because he has a ginger beard and your abusive mother was a redhead and you've basically been waiting for an opportunity to box in his head since you've met him... is pretty much counter to the RPG experience.

On the other hand, it might actually be rewarding when the computer gets it right, and you can see that your character decision has some tangible weight in the story, and exists outside of your own mind, and that could be quite a satisfying feeling.

So maybe one day there will be a computer that can accurately work out 98% of character models, but until then...

Like all words in the English language, definitions change over time. Today, (and for the past 20 years or so) RPGs are widely seen as games where you get experience and level up. Thus, that has become a correct definition of what an RPG is. Like it or not.

Originally Posted by Sam

Oh, so it's all about "becoming", now, also in italics? What does that even mean? "Representation of your mind"? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? You clearly don't have a point for me to miss, and you're certainly not clarifying anything, for you or for anyone reading. I'm only "assuming" exactly what you have told me.

I've lost interest in your tenuous grasp on semantics.

Now I'm getting the impression that you're not even reading my arguments anymore.

I clearly explained what I meant by "becoming" the character (Notice the paragraphs about improvisation and good vs. bad gamemasters?), but it's pointless to further elaborate, as you've seemingly made up your mind that this journalist is the be-all end-all of what defines the RPG.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

Like all words in the English language, definitions change over time. Today, (and for the past 20 years or so) RPGs are widely seen as games where you get experience and level up. Thus, that has become a correct definition of what an RPG is. Like it or not.

That does bring up a new question I have for Sam, though; where exactly do you stand on the definition of the RPG? Should we return to the original definition (That I elaborated upon)? You seemingly don't think so, as you consider it far too broad/vague (Even though it really isn't, in the video game world, anyway). What about creating a new definition? Apparently you'd rather expand upon an already widely-recognized definition. So why do you not consider an RPG simply a game that allows your character to grow in strength/ability/experience as the game progresses, since that is the most widely-held current definition of the RPG?

Don't get me wrong; I don't agree with it at all, and I'd rather the word be returned to its original meaning. However, if you don't want to make up a new definition out of nowhere (And instead expand upon an already existing definition), you'll either have to side with the modern definition (RPGs are about character growth/leveling) or the classic definition (The definition that I'm in favor of).

Basically, D&D is a role playing game where you get experience and level up. Since it was the epitome of what people saw as an RPG people started equating RPG to be "D&D like", in other words, any game that played like D&D was labeled an RPG. Meaning any game that had a campaign and let the player gain experience and level up.

It's really a prime example of what has happened to countless words in our language. If we went back to the original meanings of all words in our language, the confusion would be astounding. There are always people who want to hold on to the original meanings, but they are always left behind. I see no reason to change the label of "D&D like games" from RPG.