Bioware Writer: JRPGs are not RPGs

[Shawn Hopkins]

Oh yeah. He said that stuff. What do you think about it?

http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/8006/bioware-you-can-put-a-j-in-front-of-it-but-final-fantasy-13-isnt-an-rpg


Talking with Strategy Informer about the upcoming release of Star Wars: The Old Republic, Daniel Erickson, Writing Director for Bioware said that Final Fantasy XIII isn't an RPG. This was in reply to a question about the main staple of The Old Republic being its story, and how the game might be affected without good game play to support it, much like Final Fantasy XIII was.

"Well, before I address the main point I just want to take a slightly more controversial route: You can put a 'J' in front of it, but it's not an RPG. You don't make any choices, you don't create a character, you don't live your character... I don't know what those are - adventure games maybe? But they're not RPG's." said Erickson.

As someone who has been playing JRPGs since Dragon Warrior, has completed dozens of them, has enjoyed them immensely, who has more than a hundred easily in his collection, and who still regularly buys new ones...

I agree. They're great games and a lot of fun but they're for the most part misnamed. JRPGs combine stats, visual novel storytelling and adventure elements in a wonderful stew, but somebody decades ago looked at them and saw superficial resemblances to Dungeons and Dragons and now we're stuck with the inaccurate name.

[Undrave]

Whatever I don't really care. As long as I can get a handy moniker for those kind of games they can be classified as Banana games for all I care.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Oh yeah. He said that stuff. What do you think about it?

http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/8006/bioware-you-can-put-a-j-in-front-of-it-but-final-fantasy-13-isnt-an-rpg


Talking with Strategy Informer about the upcoming release of Star Wars: The Old Republic, Daniel Erickson, Writing Director for Bioware said that Final Fantasy XIII isn't an RPG. This was in reply to a question about the main staple of The Old Republic being its story, and how the game might be affected without good game play to support it, much like Final Fantasy XIII was.

"Well, before I address the main point I just want to take a slightly more controversial route: You can put a 'J' in front of it, but it's not an RPG. You don't make any choices, you don't create a character, you don't live your character... I don't know what those are - adventure games maybe? But they're not RPG's." said Erickson.

As someone who has been playing JRPGs since Dragon Warrior, has completed dozens of them, has enjoyed them immensely, who has more than a hundred easily in his collection, and who still regularly buys new ones...

I agree. They're great games and a lot of fun but they're for the most part misnamed. JRPGs combine stats, visual novel storytelling and adventure elements in a wonderful stew, but somebody decades ago looked at them and saw superficial resemblances to Dungeons and Dragons and now we're stuck with the inaccurate name.

It is so ironic you listed Dragon Warrior as your prime example as that is the closest to "true" RPGs out of any "JRPG" franchise out there.

That said, I do not consider Bioware's games to be RPGs by his definition also. He seems to imply that real RPGs must have very little limitations. But video games are inherently limited--you can only do so much, configure your character in a set number of ways, and choose from a set number of options. You may be given 4 paths, and out of the 4, two of them give you the most rewards (can only get +5 Bloodsucker sword from path A, Armour of the Ages from path B and get a bunch of useless gold in paths C and D, can only choose one path, can't do all of them, etc). Thus, the gamer who plays such RPGs simply is compelled to choose the path with the best reward by process of save/re-load and looking up tip guides. It's very multiple choice, not so much "total" freedom. If "JRPGs" end up being more adventure based than "true" RPGs, most North American video game RPGs end up being multiple choice tests rather than "real" RPGs in the pen and paper tradition. The Elder Scrolls games are probably the exception (along with the Sims, which is probably the closest video game example of being a "real" RPG by its strict definition), but that series also invites its own thread of criticism...

[ensatsu-ken]

I also agree. I've never really considered JRPGs to really be actual RPGs. They are more like adventure games with some RPG and exploration elements put into them, but not really actual RPGs (at least not in the sense of what an American would define an RPG as). That said, I've personally never been much of a fan of either RPGs or JRPGs, but I have considered them to be completely different entities. Overall, though, JRPGs don't give you nearly as much freedom with modifying your character (and I don't mean that just in terms of customizing their looks), nor do they give you many multiple alternative paths to choose from. Most of the time, they are pretty linear (story-wise) and play out more like adventure games with a turn-based fighting system. Of course, its not like I care about having a lot of freedom in most RPGs if the game itself bores me to death after just a few hours (i.e. games like Fable, Oblivion and Fallout 3, for example), but I will at least acknowledge that its exactly that large amount of freedom in controlling your character and his/her actions that truly actually make those games feel like you're "role-playing" in them, rather than just playing through a linear script with no major alterations to it no matter how many times you play through the game again.


That said, I do not consider Bioware's games to be RPGs by his definition also. He seems to imply that real RPGs must have very little limitations. But video games are inherently limited--you can only do so much, configure your character in a set number of ways, and choose from a set number of options. You may be given 4 paths, and out of the 4, two of them give you the most rewards (can only get +5 Bloodsucker sword from path A, Armour of the Ages from path B and get a bunch of useless gold in paths C and D, can only choose one path, can't do all of them, etc). Thus, the gamer who plays such RPGs simply is compelled to choose the path with the best reward by process of save/re-load and looking up tip guides. It's very multiple choice, not so much "total" freedom.

I think you're missing the point. I don't think that he meant that RPGs have "total freedom" literally, but in general give you much more freedom relative to most other game genres. Of course there will always be limitations to video games, but what sets RPGs apart IS just the fact that they give you multiple options. Whether you consider it to be no more than multiple choice or not, its still very different from something like, say, Halo or Devil May Cry or Half-Life 2 or Assassin's Creed or Zelda or ANY other type of game that has you go through basically the same sequence of major events no matter how many times you go through them. In RPGs (especially these days), they at least give you a few different major paths that will lead to very different experiences, in terms of how your character acts, what specific abilities he uses, and even what types of enemies he might fight.

Now, I'm not using this to try and praise RPGs as being totally free, as I honestly don't really care about freedom in a game unless it still has some real focus in it to keep me interested in playing. All I'm saying is that RPGs do have enough additional freedom in gameplay to help distinguish them from otehr game genres, and honestly, yes, Bioware's games DO indeed fit under that description more than JRPGs do, so they should be considered RPGs.

[GWOtaku]

Isn't this issue why subgenres like the Adventure RPG and the Action RPG exist in the first place? I think taking his statement about FF XIII to its logical conclusion would essentially label such things fraudulent. This will never be agreed upon. There are too many games that blur the line that don't completely fit into a strict RPG definition or the straightforward boundaries of a simple adventure game.

And about creating characters, living a character...does he mean to imply that a real RPG must present you with a customizable hero instead of a specific avatar? This is problematic. Customization in some games might be more primitive by being mostly dependent on equipment choices and a few choices at the beginning, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. I'm even skeptical about singling out JRPG protagonists with stock designs like Cloud, Lightning, etc. Would Deus Ex really lose serious RPG cred if the default look for JC Denton were the only one?

What about tactical and strategy RPG's? Do those not deserve RPG identification because you're customizing an army instead of a single character or a smaller party?

I could do a lot of research and try getting into a big dissertation about all the subgenres and their similarities and differences, but I'm too busy for that right now so I'll simply comment that I think his views strike me as hubris. One gets the impression that his idea of a "real" great RPG are essentially the kind of games that Bioware chooses to make. Coming from him that's understandable, but I see no practical reason for a general movement to purify the RPG genre or whatever Mr. Erickson would prefer that we do.

[Shawn Hopkins]

It is so ironic you listed Dragon Warrior as your prime example as that is the closest to "true" RPGs out of any "JRPG" franchise out there.


There's nothing ironic about it because I wasn't trying to make a prime example. That's just the first JRPG I played and, along with Phantasy Star which came out for a system I didn't have then, one of the first to be released in the United States.

And there's no a hell of a lot of character customization or choice in Dragon Warrior and only a little bit of nonlinearity (you can get the magic treasures somewhat in the order of your choosing). You can name your character, which actually has an influence on his stats, and you can get the weapons and armor but you'd be stupid not to just use the latest and greatest stuff from the latest town you've made it too. All spells and stat increases are handed to you automatically as you level.


And it set a hilarious trend for JRPG "choice" that doesn't mean anything with the "but thou must" trap. I guess you can choose to side with the Dragon Lord at the end, too, but that just ends the game instantly.

It's still one of my favorite games ever, though.

And GW, no, strategy and tactical RPGs don't count and should never be labeled RPGs. I don't even include them in my RPG collections. They're just strategy games with stat growth and a story line. And since most strategy games, even Civilization, have some form of stat growth and most have storylines, they're honestly just strategy games.

[Desensitized]

Whatever I don't really care. As long as I can get a handy moniker for those kind of games they can be classified as Banana games for all I care.Pretty much. This argument is old and stale, and I'm tired of going over the same tired points over and over.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I think you're missing the point. I don't think that he meant that RPGs have "total freedom" literally, but in general give you much more freedom relative to most other game genres. Of course there will always be limitations to video games, but what sets RPGs apart IS just the fact that they give you multiple options. Whether you consider it to be no more than multiple choice or not, its still very different from something like, say, Halo or Devil May Cry or Half-Life 2 or Assassin's Creed or Zelda or ANY other type of game that has you go through basically the same sequence of major events no matter how many times you go through them. In RPGs (especially these days), they at least give you a few different major paths that will lead to very different experiences, in terms of how your character acts, what specific abilities he uses, and even what types of enemies he might fight.

.

I don't think I am. I don't want to go through each game point by point, but as I said before, only Elder Scroll and maybe the recent Fallout are exceptions. Even then, I don't really agree with you about " other games going through the same sequence of major events and real RPGs do not."

The fact is, to beat the "end" guy you generally have to go through the same sequence of events anyway. Sure, the order might be different, but not really. Since each event is often marked by challenges for low, intermediate or high level characters. So in the end, you still gotta go through most of the same events just to build your guy up.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I don't think I am. I don't want to go through each game point by point, but as I said before, only Elder Scroll and maybe the recent Fallout are exceptions. Even then, I don't really agree with you about " other games going through the same sequence of major events and real RPGs do not."

The fact is, to beat the "end" guy you generally have to go through the same sequence of events anyway. Sure, the order might be different, but not really. Since each event is often marked by challenges for low, intermediate or high level characters. So in the end, you still gotta go through most of the same events just to build your guy up.

Not so much anymore. Most WRPGs now have scaling difficulty so you can tackle the challenges in any order.

[GWOtaku]

So in the end, you still gotta go through most of the same events just to build your guy up.

That's completely true. Heck, if we were being draconian about this, Fable (or Fallout, or any open-ended experience you don't have to finish) would be a "true RPG" whereas Mass Effect and Dragon Age would not be. Choice and freedom can't be all that separates "real" RPG's from the rest.

[TheGunheart]

If you really want to get technical, then Bioware's games aren't RPGs either. They're campaigns for an RPG. Baldur's Gate is a Dungeons & Dragons campaign, Dragon Age: Origins didn't get its RPG until later, KotOR is a campaign for Wizards of the Coast's Star Wars d20 game, Mass Effect is a campaign for an RPG that simply doesn't exist...

There's some superficial illusion of choice in terms of your karmic alignment and what order you do things, but you'll always end up a Gray Warden, a Jedi Knight or a Spectre and confronting that final boss.

[Shawn Hopkins]

That's completely true. Heck, if we were being draconian about this, Fable (or Fallout, or any open-ended experience you don't have to finish) would be a "true RPG" whereas Mass Effect and Dragon Age would not be. Choice and freedom can't be all that separates "real" RPG's from the rest.

Aren't you getting those backward? Mass Effect and Dragon Age let you play most of their missions in any order you choose.

To be a "real" RPG it has to have some of the key elements of pen and paper role playing games that give the illusion of becoming another character and making decisions as them. That is, it has to allow you to create and customize your own character in a meaningful way, usually with statistics of some sort, it has to allow you to make choices for that character, and it has to allow you opportunities to explore the world as you choose.

Most JRPGs simply fall short of this. You're Cloud, you know, you just watch what Cloud does and move him from place to place and try to kill the things that stand in his way. Shenmue, not an RPG so much I know, contains a glaring example of this mindset in Japanese gaming. For all of the alleged control you're supposed to have over Ryu you can not make that sucker stay out past his bed time. He worries about his aunt so he goes home. You aren't even being Ryu, you're just moving him around for a while.

I get what you're saying, gunheart, but you really have to have a campaign set up to sit down and play an RPG so it's sort of a minor distinction. The game is just a DM with only one campaign for you. Also, if you use your definition then Neverwinter Nights might be the one true, honest to gosh RPG, because you can make your own campaigns.

[GWOtaku]

Aren't you getting those backward? Mass Effect and Dragon Age let you play most of their missions in any order you choose.Yes, but certain outcomes are foreordained in order to advance the story. These games broke new ground in terms of giving you multiple ways to accomplish certain things, but ultimately they do push you toward a finish line just as JRPG's do. Every RPG that doesn't have a sandbox environment has this in common. But I see your bottom line is not the sandbox standard, so moving right along.....


To be a "real" RPG it has to have some of the key elements of pen and paper role playing games that give the illusion of becoming another character and making decisions as them. That is, it has to allow you to create and customize your own character in a meaningful way, usually with statistics of some sort, it has to allow you to make choices for that character, and it has to allow you opportunities to explore the world as you choose.Ah, here we go. My issue is that I don't think a "real" RPG has to have ALL of these things to fit the genre or create that illusion. Let's take Deus Ex, a textbook case of multiple genres smashed together. It meets every standard perfectly except, I would argue, exploration. By necessity you will need to visit certain places multiple times and there is much to do in Hong Kong, but once you leave an area there is no turning back. It's linear compared to Dragon Age. It plays like a FPS but has all of the customization and decision making of a good WRPG. RPG or fake RPG?

Chrono Trigger. Here too it is one big area to the next for much of the game. Then the game opens up and you can either explore and do lots of side quests or try to defeat the big bad immediately. In said side quests you can do things that change history. There is a party member that will or will not join you depending on an unavoidable choice that you have to make. Another may or may not be with you at the end of the game depending on what you do. Crono is a silent protagonist. RPG or fake RPG?

Final Fantasy VI. It too eventually opens up, lets you fly anywhere you want, and take on side quests. You have zero obligation to defeat the game with all of the characters that you could have. But it doesn't have customization. RPG or fake RPG?

The Ultima series. In general you create and customize a character and can then explore and dungeon crawl. It had statistics. But it was invented in the 80s and so at the time it pretty much lacked decision making. RPG or fake RPG?

This is why I think pursuing a catch-all, exclusive definition of an RPG is a counterproductive and ultimately futile effort.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Yes, but certain outcomes are foreordained in order to advance the story. These games broke new ground in terms of giving you multiple ways to accomplish certain things, but ultimately they do push you toward a finish line just as JRPG's do. Every RPG that doesn't have a sandbox environment has this in common. But I see your bottom line is not the sandbox standard, so moving right along.....

Ah, here we go. My issue is that I don't think a "real" RPG has to have ALL of these things to fit the genre or create that illusion. Let's take Deus Ex, a textbook case of multiple genres smashed together. It meets every standard perfectly except, I would argue, exploration. By necessity you will need to visit certain places multiple times and there is much to do in Hong Kong, but once you leave an area there is no turning back. It's linear compared to Dragon Age. It plays like a FPS but has all of the customization and decision making of a good WRPG. RPG or fake RPG?

Chrono Trigger. Here too it is one big area to the next for much of the game. Then the game opens up and you can either explore and do lots of side quests or try to defeat the big bad immediately. In said side quests you can do things that change history. There is a party member that will or will not join you depending on an unavoidable choice that you have to make. Another may or may not be with you at the end of the game depending on what you do. Crono is a silent protagonist. RPG or fake RPG?

Final Fantasy VI. It too eventually opens up, lets you fly anywhere you want, and take on side quests. You have zero obligation to defeat the game with all of the characters that you could have. But it doesn't have customization. RPG or fake RPG?

The Ultima series. In general you create and customize a character and can then explore and dungeon crawl. It had statistics. But it was invented in the 80s and so at the time it pretty much lacked decision making. RPG or fake RPG?

This is why I think pursuing a catch-all, exclusive definition of an RPG is a counterproductive and ultimately futile effort.

That there's an open-ended sandbox element isn't at all important to the debate. Like gunheart said, RPG games are essentially campaigns and campaigns have an end.

The problem people have with definitions is that they have this need to make sacred cows somehow fit because they desperately want them to. People will even try to say Zelda is an RPG. Because of tradition people want to keep lumping them all together as RPGs instead of finally admitting that, hey, some of them might just be banana games. And then our definitions stay fuzzy because they are forced to encompass such disparate things.

Anyway, Deus Ex. Yes, because although there are levels there is meaningful exploration within those that allow alternate paths and playstyles. You don't have to be able to go anywhere all the time. You can't even do that in Morrowind.

Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger. Heck no. No customization or character creation, not an RPG.

The original Ultimas might just be a little too simple to qualify. Later ones like IV, where the goal is to become a better person and you can choose how to do that do, though. So, no, sacred cow or no the first one might not qualify.

[Mynd Hed]

All games are RPGs, because all games require you to play a role. There. Argument solved.

In all seriousness, though, it's no good getting bent out of shape over semantics. Any definition of the term RPG that you come up with is inevitably going to exclude some games that most people consider RPGS and include some that most people don't. Then you start tossing terms like "RPG elements" into the mix and things get even more muddled.

Genres aren't formed by strictly defined, set-in-stone definitions that apply forever. They're constantly mutating, combining, splitting off from one another and re-forming. It's like being part of a family. Final Fantasy XIII may have very little to do with the elements cribbed from Dungeons and Dragons that led FF1 to be labeled an RPG if you compare the two of them directly, but they still have a common lineage. And if you dug up a picture of my octuple-great grandfather, after ten generations of interbreeding with all kinds of different people, we probably wouldn't look anything alike either. But we'd still have the same last name.

[GWOtaku]

So as I see it Shawn's argument is essentially that with a few very rare exceptions, the RPG should be considered to have not existed in the video game format until the latter half of the 1990's. And yet, significant RPG elements and features are there for these and other games. We have to at least be able to categorize them as the hybrids that they are, or we're going to end up attributing them some worthless definition that ignores a part of their obvious identity. The adventure genre covers a lot of territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_game#Characteristics), but not enough. Zelda can be clearly defined as an action-adventure series exclusively, Final Fantasy cannot be.

[Shawn Hopkins]

So as I see it Shawn's argument is essentially that with a few very rare exceptions, the RPG should be considered to have not existed in the video game format until the latter half of the 1990's. And yet, significant RPG elements and features are there for these and other games. We have to at least be able to categorize them as the hybrids that they are, or we're going to end up attributing them some worthless definition that ignores a part of their obvious identity. The adventure genre covers a lot of territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_game#Characteristics), but not enough. Zelda can be clearly defined as an action-adventure series exclusively, Final Fantasy cannot be.

Well, mainly on consoles. There were quite a few games that fit the definition on PC like Wasteland and Darklands, but, yeah, but for the most part the console games were misnamed.

There's another stumbling block that confuses people in what you're talking about. Calling things like stats and character growth RPG elements has made people erroneously think that a great majority of games are RPG-like. Yes, stats are in RPGs but they're also in baseball games. Statistics are not exclusive to RPG games and shouldn't be considered an RPG element. It's a lazy comparison based on a non-exclusive superficial simularity. Kinda like the stereotype that anything with a dungeon and a dragon in it was an RPG that caused all the confusion in the first place.

You could call JRPGs more accurately interactive adventure novels. The novel is the structure they follow the most closely and they are interactive.

[ensatsu-ken]

I don't think I am. I don't want to go through each game point by point, but as I said before, only Elder Scroll and maybe the recent Fallout are exceptions. Even then, I don't really agree with you about " other games going through the same sequence of major events and real RPGs do not."

The fact is, to beat the "end" guy you generally have to go through the same sequence of events anyway. Sure, the order might be different, but not really. Since each event is often marked by challenges for low, intermediate or high level characters. So in the end, you still gotta go through most of the same events just to build your guy up.

You ARE missing the point, proven by the fact that you completely failed to understand what I was talking about. I'm not talking about the beginning and the end as much as I am talking about the routes you go through to get to those points. Even excluding Oblivion and Fallout 3, there are plenty of other WRPGs in which the whole idea is that the story and characters act very differently depending on the paths that you choose. Its not so much the order that you choose them in, as much as it is the ability to make different decisions.

I'll give you an example. In Knights of the Old Republic II, the basic outline of the story will remain the same, but what actually goes on with the characters and the major events depends on the path you might choose. Even if its only 2 main paths to choose from (light side or dark side), the differences still show, since you have different missions on each side, different allies depending on which side you're on, and by that effect you will also have some different enemies ot fight. Furthermore, you have influence over your party members, so they too will start acting in accordance with your allignment. That has nothing to do with the order you choose to do stuff in, but instead has everything to do with choosing a different path.

And like I said, I never claimed that RPGs give you all that much freedom, but just give you more freedom relative to other genres of games. All you're doing is focusing on the minor examples I gave and only addressing those to make yourself out to be right, whereas I don't consider this to be a "competition," but rather I'm just giving my take on what the difference is between a Western "Role-Playing Game" as opposed to JRPGs, or other genres.

[SirLemming]

Any argument over semantics is bound to feel pointless when you get deep enough into it, but what the heck.


The guy's basically right. But I do wonder, however, just how much Bioware's own crown jewels really live up to the name. I feel like there's always a bit of a disconnect between the "role-playing" part and the actual meat of the game. The role-playing seems to be what you do to prepare for the gameplay, rather than the gameplay itself. Exactly what about selecting attacks, spells, and items is role-playing? Not much. It's really just a type of strategic combat system carried over from D&D and is "role-playing" by association. And the "character creation" essentially just amounts to creating a weapon.

A game like Dragon Age certainly does amazing things with the concept of choice, but I don't know just how much I feel like I'm "playing a role". Not in a way that really transcends what you do by controlling a character in any other game. It seems more like a really, really advanced version of Choose Your Own Adventure.


I have a feeling the only "real" RPGs are the original ones.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Any argument over semantics is bound to feel pointless when you get deep enough into it, but what the heck.


The guy's basically right. But I do wonder, however, just how much Bioware's own crown jewels really live up to the name. I feel like there's always a bit of a disconnect between the "role-playing" part and the actual meat of the game. The role-playing seems to be what you do to prepare for the gameplay, rather than the gameplay itself. Exactly what about selecting attacks, spells, and items is role-playing? Not much. It's really just a type of strategic combat system carried over from D&D and is "role-playing" by association. And the "character creation" essentially just amounts to creating a weapon.

A game like Dragon Age certainly does amazing things with the concept of choice, but I don't know just how much I feel like I'm "playing a role". Not in a way that really transcends what you do by controlling a character in any other game. It seems more like a really, really advanced version of Choose Your Own Adventure.


I have a feeling the only "real" RPGs are the original ones.


Yeah, maybe that's it in the end. Maybe no video game is yet advanced enough to truly be called a "role playing game" in the way we think of when we think of pen and paper RPGs.

[Peter Paltridge]

The loose definition has always been any game that has a separate battle screen and indirect control over the characters in that screen beyond selecting commands, but even that is getting blurred now.

All I know for sure is that FFXIII is the least RPG-ish RPG ever.

[SuperMegaHyper]

If you really wanna get to the bare bones of it the only "real" RPG's out there are WoW and Everquest.

[TacoHunter]

The problem is he's wrong. And this is the reason.

If being non linear is what makes an RPG, then MegaMan, Mario World, and even board games like Candyland, are RPGs.

If its choice, once again, the examples of non linear game can be used, there is also Hitman and Strategy games. In a game like Starcraft you have to make a choice on which units you want to build first and fast.

If its multiple endings, then is Silent Hill or Resident Evil RPGs?

If its character customization then I guess Little Big Planet, or how about the character editor in the Soul Caliber games? Are those RPGs?

If its a moral choice system and effects how NPCs behave, then is the Chao Garden from Sonic Adventure 2 an RPG? Is Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath an RPG, if you beat up the towns people they'll run away from you. Maybe Zelda:Link's Awakening is an RPG because if you steal from the shop all the NPCs will call you "Thief" for the rest of the game.

Now we can either assume those games ARE RPGs or are NOT RPGs. If we assume they are, then all games are in fact RPGs. If we assume they are NOT, then what makes an RPG, an RPG?

First we should find games that are RPGs with little to no questions. I'm going to go with Dungeons and Dragons, as a table top RPG, Final Fantasy as a Japanese RPG, and Balder's Gate for Western RPGs. Now i know, it might seem bias to have a jRPG in there, because it means that my definition will HAVE to make it an RPG, which is the main argument right now. But I say I can define what an RPG is that will make all three of these games and every gamed called an RPG able to be defined as an RPG.

Is it being in a fantasy setting? While its true that all 3 started off as fantasy games, that is not true. Both FF and D&D have tackled other genres, namely Sci-fi. Which means, its not the settings that make these games RPGs.

Is it character growth? Now while its true that all these games do have leveling up and such, if we allowed every game with character growth, then the RPG genre would pretty much be everything, so I don't think that's it.

Is it choice? All three of them do have ways to customize and tackle events in a different order, but that's once again too broad. For a lot of other genres can do that as well.

Now this is what it will really come down to. Mechanics. Turn based? They all are in fact turn based. And I don't think that's a bad way to define this genre, but there are a few exceptions that come up, like Mass Effect and Secret of Mana. So I don't think they have to be turn based. Also, chess and board games would be RPGs as well.

So what else about the mechanics? How about this, random number generation? All RPGs have dice rolls. Every table top RPG, every JRPG, every Western RPG. Sometimes you critically hit, sometimes you miss, sometimes you do normal damage, sometimes normal damage had a large range of damage it can do. Sometimes you run in to combat, sometimes you can avoid it, sometimes you can run away, sometimes you have to fight. All RPGs use random number generation.

Zelda doesn't use random numbers, every hit always does the same damage. Same with Mega Man, Hitman, etc. So those aren't RPGs.

RPGs try to simulate the real world with dice throws, and that is what all RPGs have in common. So with that, JRPGs are RPGs.

[Shawn Hopkins]

So what else about the mechanics? How about this, random number generation? All RPGs have dice rolls. Every table top RPG, every JRPG, every Western RPG. Sometimes you critically hit, sometimes you miss, sometimes you do normal damage, sometimes normal damage had a large range of damage it can do. Sometimes you run in to combat, sometimes you can avoid it, sometimes you can run away, sometimes you have to fight. All RPGs use random number generation.

Zelda doesn't use random numbers, every hit always does the same damage. Same with Mega Man, Hitman, etc. So those aren't RPGs.

RPGs try to simulate the real world with dice throws, and that is what all RPGs have in common. So with that, JRPGs are RPGs.

Doesn't work, dude. Games that aren't RPGs also use random number tables. Tetris is an RPG under that definition.

[SuperMegaHyper]

Well put, I think he was stating "True RPG's" should be more like the pen and paper, and like I stated before if one is to go by that definition the only true ones are WoW and Everquest.

[TacoHunter]

Doesn't work, dude. Games that aren't RPGs also use random number tables. Tetris is an RPG under that definition.
Ah, but Tetris does not seek to simulate the real world with random numbers. Though then again, we do have games like Puzzle Quest which are RPGs with puzzle games...so maybe not too far off. Perhaps puzzle games are more RPG then people would expect...

[Mynd Hed]

You ARE missing the point, proven by the fact that you completely failed to understand what I was talking about.

Cool it. There's a difference between disagreeing with you and "missing the point." It's entirely possible to fully understand what you're saying, and still disagree with it.

[ensatsu-ken]

Cool it. There's a difference between disagreeing with you and "missing the point." It's entirely possible to fully understand what you're saying, and still disagree with it.

You're acting as if I was flaming LLJ, which I wasn't (I never take arguments that far). I already said that I didn't consider my disagreement with LLJ to be a "competition." I said that LLJ was missing the point because he/she was going by the example I used of RPGs letting you choose the order of events you carry out in many cases, whereas the main point of what I was getting at was that RPGs give you multiple different paths to choose from to get from point A to point B (to put it simply, stuff along the "light and dark" side ways of doing things). I even stated that what I said was just "my take on the difference between WRPG's and JRPGs," so its not like I was giving LLJ a problem for disagreeing with me, but rather just pointing out that he/she didn't really address the main point of my post.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Ah, but Tetris does not seek to simulate the real world with random numbers. Though then again, we do have games like Puzzle Quest which are RPGs with puzzle games...so maybe not too far off. Perhaps puzzle games are more RPG then people would expect...

Tetris is just the most extreme example, using the random numbers to determine the next Tetrad. Gran Turismo uses random numbers to help simulate the world, too. Lots of games do.

[TacoHunter]

Tetris is just the most extreme example, using the random numbers to determine the next Tetrad. Gran Turismo uses random numbers to help simulate the world, too. Lots of games do.
Then there is no such thing as an RPG. For the entire concept of the genre is flawed. If there is no clear way to define what an RPG is, then there is no way for there to be a genre.

Then I guess the genre would have to fall back on its turn based roots. Which would make games like Mass Effect a shooter, which makes sense, because it is. Puzzle Quest would be a puzzle game, which it is. Secret of Mana would be an adventure game (or action/adventure), which it is.

Games like FFXIII, Dragon Age, etc are still turn based because you basically just queue up attacks for the characters. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that isn't an RPG and turned based.

I guess that simplifies that matter.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Then there is no such thing as an RPG. For the entire concept of the genre is flawed. If there is no clear way to define what an RPG is, then there is no way for there to be a genre.

Then I guess the genre would have to fall back on its turn based roots. Which would make games like Mass Effect a shooter, which makes sense, because it is. Puzzle Quest would be a puzzle game, which it is. Secret of Mana would be an adventure game (or action/adventure), which it is.

Games like FFXIII, Dragon Age, etc are still turn based because you basically just queue up attacks for the characters. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that isn't an RPG and turned based.

I guess that simplifies that matter.

And you can't say an RPG is a game with turn-based combat either, unless you want to make something like Scorched Earth or Civilization an RPG.

You're getting way too hung up on small mechanics and trying to define things by one element here. You can't just say "An RPG is an RPG because it has elements I commonly associate with an RPG." That gets dangerously close to tautology.

Look at the broader picture and stop trying to define things by one "traditional" element.

[defunctzombie]

The way I see it they are all RPGs, just that the Japanese flavor theirs a little differently than the western ones.

[Mr. Obsession]

TheGunheart has it right, all video game RPGs are campaigns for different rule systems. And just like traditional RPGs some GM's keep things running on a tight story and others make it flexible when their players want to do their own thing.

For myself I define a game as RPG or not by the tried and true "PnP rule." How easily can the video game I'm playing be converted into a Pen and Paper game? Minimal or no effort needed, it's an RPG. Moderate effort needed, it's RPG-hybrid. Need to make up an entire rule set to make it work, it's a different genre with RPG elements mixed in.

[Zeonic Freak]

Yea a friend told me about this, and I laughed...