Quote:

Original post by Adraeus Extrarius, Grim: The problem with defining "RPG" simplistically is that most games would accordingly become Role-Playing Games. Using such a definition eliminates more than 80% of the genre names unless, of course, "Role-Playing Game" was used as a parent category which encompasses Action Role-Playing, Adventure Role-Playing, Strategic Role-Playing, etc. Common usage demonstrates that is not the case.

Then again, most games are role-playing games, to a certain degree, just as most games are strategy games to a certain degree, etc. The problem is the attempt to classify all games into a crisp, unique partition, but that will never work. The way people classify games is a fuzzy one, and depends on the person classifying. After all, many people consider Diablo a role-playing game, while others do not.

For instance, Neverwinter Nights is mainly about a story and character development (which is actually just another part of the story, but I'll mention it anyway). It also involves a lot of tactics and strategy, puzzles, testing the player's skills and reflexes, and simulation of the world of Forgotten Realms. Still I call it mainly an rpg, and not a simulator, rts, or a puzzle game, because the story is the main point of it. If it had no story (incl. character development and all the other similar aspects that make it flow), you could call it an action game, a tactical game or whatever.

Maybe I worded my post badly. My point was not to say that all games with a story or the possibility to role-play are strictly role-playing games, but story, including, but not limited to, pre-written story, character development, having a dynamic, evolving world, those are the role-playing elements of a game. At least, from my point of view. A game that deserves to be called an rpg focuses on those aspects.

Quote:

Games are classified by their innards. There's no getting around that.

But that is exactly what I mean. And there is more than meets the eye in all games, or rather game playing sessions. I could role-play Postal 2 if I wanted to. Heck, I could role-play Windows Minesweeper if I was desperate enough. Of course, that's not the point. Postal 2 focuses on ultraviolence. I could call it real-time carnage game. Still, that doesn't mean there is no role-playing elements in it.

Quote:

Now, the questions were and remain, "What really is a Role-Playing Game (RPG)? What are the necessary components of a RPG?" What makes a RPG good is irrelevant. What are the necessary components of a game required to classify a game as a Role-Playing Game? Merely roleplay doesn't cut it. By the way, Extrarius, a game without rules is neither a game nor a reality.

As for what really is a role-playing game, it can't be answered as simply like that, because there is no answer. There is no One True Crisp Classification of games, and if someone tried to make one, a lot of people would disagree with him. Role-playing is an element in all games, and those where it is the most distinct element are usually called role-playing games. What is required to classify a game as a role-playing game depends on who classifies.

As for what are the necessary components of an rpg, I didn't just say role-playing. I emphasized story, and I meant focusing on the story, not just having one. Story can mean a mostly pre-written story or an environment in which you can create your own story. And that or is not exclusive.

And while I do agree with you in the assertion that a game needs rules, role-playing doesn't need rules per se. Because of this, you don't need to force restrictions on the rules. A game needs rules, but the rp element doesn't impose implications on those rules.

Then apparently genre classifications are dependent on a spectrum of emphasis.

A game that focuses on roleplay and uses a variety of methods to facilitate roleplay is a Role-Playing Game while a game that focuses on action is an Action game (e.g., D&D versus Dooom). Of course, we can apply the 80/20 rule to genres and classify a game as an Action RPG if the game's focus is on rolepay and uses Action elements to facilitate roleplay. This system of classification, however, seems dependent on subjectivity unless the designers of the game demonstrate through design their game focuses on a certain element.

Quote:

Original post by Adraeus Extrarius, Grim: The problem with defining "RPG" simplistically is that most games would accordingly become Role-Playing Games. Using such a definition eliminates more than 80% of the genre names unless, of course, "Role-Playing Game" was used as a parent category which encompasses Action Role-Playing, Adventure Role-Playing, Strategic Role-Playing, etc. [...]

I disagree - in quake 2 for example, you're not making "meaningful choices according to the mentality of your character", you're shooting demons from hell and don't have any choice about it. An RPG is a game where you can make choices that make a difference, and in doom 3 (and many CRPGs) you can't do that. FF6 on the SNES is an action/adventure game for example, and not an RPG. The same is true of all the zelda games I've played. In either, there is a story and stats and items etc but when it comes down to it you're solving the game(in a graph theory sense) and not making meaningful choices. Baldurs Gate 2 on the PC is an RPG because it allows you to make meaningful choices.

The above is a bit of stretch on the 'meaningful' part, so I guess it'd be better to say 'significantly impactful choices' or something like that. It isn't easy to create precise definitions on something so subjective, but I think the above should help clarify my view.

Quote:

[...]By the way, Extrarius, a game without rules is neither a game nor a reality.

It is entirely possible to play games without well defined rules. Obviously there will be rules, but I intended to convey that they don't have to be well defined (for any meaning of 'well defined'), which many people seem to fail to realize.

Quote:

Original post by Adraeus This system of classification, however, seems dependent on subjectivity

This is the case, but you sound surprised by it. Who defines the 'focus' of a game? Who defines what 'action' is (RPGs often feature lots of action) and who defines what 'roleplay' is (action games often feature you playing a role)?

I think you're trying to find some sort of absolute and discrete system for classification which can never be useful.

Extrarius: In FF6, your characters can make meaningful choices. You often decide which characters live or die. For instance, Shadow and Cyan. There are many ways to play the game.

Kylotan: The focus and action of a game are determined and designed by the game designers. Roleplay is already defined by the stage. To play a role is to assume a behavior according to a role's specifications (e.g., a character's history).

There is an objective system for classification. It's just simply not well-defined.

The act of playing a role in a given story is only part of what I consider an RPG. The ability to make choices about how your character evolves is a must. Also, if the player's evolution is already set or limited by predetermined choices, it is an interactive story, not an RPG. .02

Quote:

Original post by Adraeus Extrarius: In FF6, your characters can make meaningful choices. You often decide which characters live or die. For instance, Shadow and Cyan. There are many ways to play the game.[...]

Perhaps, but only somewhat. For example, I didn't know you could save shadow even after beating the game twice until after I read a walkthrough, so I didn't have the choice. I guess that would still count, though I think the fact that there is a choice should be more obvious.

Grellin: Most games are interactive stories. Whether a game is linear or nonlinear is irrelevant to the classification of a game. If, by your argument, linearity negated the RPG classification, then you've just discarded the entire history of roleplay-oriented videogames. Many landmark RPGs, such as Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy, are linear.

Quote:

Original post by Adraeus Kylotan: The focus and action of a game are determined and designed by the game designers.

They make the game, they may have opinions about the focus and action, but when it is released it is the players' opinion that counts.

Quote:

Roleplay is already defined by the stage. To play a role is to assume a behavior according to a role's specifications (e.g., a character's history).

By 'the stage'? Are you talking about dramatics here? A definition in another artform is not binding upon game development.

Quote:

There is an objective system for classification. It's just simply not well-defined.

Then it's not objective...

Kylotan:

1. Game Designers design the game how it should be played. If the player interprets the gameplay differently, then the design did not succeed.

2. To play a role is to assume a behavior according to a role's specifications. That is roleplay. All concepts apply to everything. Everything is relative.

3. Lack of a clear definition does not make something subjective by default.