Second, the book opens with an article on how "TRUE RPGS" never really existed. It's a genre that represents a lot of things to lot of people. To some (like you) it means stats-driven gameplay, but to more modern players it means choices. Josh Sawyer once wrote how Wizardry probably wouldn't be an RPG by today's standards. Stats barely matter in Mass Effect 3, but good luck convincing anyone that it isn't a RPG.
FFS, I even wrote
a massive article on Gamasutra just talking about why RPGs are so hard to define because of the various sources from which it evolved.
If true RPGs never existed, then it wouldn't be a genre.
You had linked me to that article on Gamasutra a couple of years ago already. And as most people, it commits the same mistake. It takes elements from games to describe RPGs instead of taking the whole package. Like I mentioned before in this thread, RPGs use elements that are also found in many other genres but it is how those elements work in the full package (entirety of the game) that defines a genre. If we starts saying that a game genre is defined by each element it uses, we wouldn't have game genres anymore... Like the example I also mentioned before, platformers use the jump element, does any game with a jump element becomes a Plaformer? No, it doesn't. Does a Shooter without the jumping element stops being a shooter (because other shooters have jumping)? No, it doesn't. That is what people are trying to do with RPGs. (Simplification example ensues) Some RPGs allow role-playing, so RPGs have to allow roleplaying... But wait, some don't allow role-playing
oh no, what is a RPG is complicated... Which is always missing the point.
RPGs just like all the other genres are the sum of all it's parts, but the key thing is that the character skills and stats are always more important than the player skills.
Your article talks about what different people think RPGs are, but I mentioned in the past that what people consider a RPG is different from what a RPG actually is. Because people are using their own preferences to say what a RPG should be for them. They are using elements that enrich the RPG genre to define that genre. But again, if we strip it down to the bare bones, those elements are not present on many RPGs.
The thing about character skills matter more than player skill is present in every RPG subgenre since the first. There are RPGs that don't have story, there are RPGs without choices, there are RPGs without level up, there are RPGs without role-playing. No matter what one prefers in their RPGs, this does not change.
Also you mention in your article that Action RPGs are dependent of player skill more than character skill, but this is false. Grab the most influential Action RPGs from history and you will see that they depend more on character skill than player skill. Diablo, Titan Quest, Daggerfall, Ultima Underworld, etc. depend on the character skills to hit and deal damage to the enemies. The player presses the attack button and the characters have to be able to do it themselves.
You also mention that Zelda games are not RPGs and that is true, at least for the older games (I don't know about recent Zelda games, since i haven't played them and don't know much about them to be honest).
The thing about saying that RPGs are games that allow the player to play a role, is totally silly. Probably 90% of every computer game has the player playing the role of the character. Doom has the player playing the role of a marine, Duke Nukem the player plays as Duke, Mario games have the player playing the role of Mario or Luigi (or even more characters), etc. If the capability of playing a role would be a defining element of RPGs, then most genres of games would be considered RPGs. Again, it's the full package that defines a genre, not each element. For example, Metal Gear games have the player playing a stealthy special forces agent Solid Snake, the games do a pretty good job of simulating that role, but they are not RPGs.
You quote Richard Garriott in your article:
This is my personal definition; most people don't adhere to this. Diablo, great game. Loved it. For me, I use the term "RPG" for it because it is a stats game. It's a "Do I have the best armor equipment compared to the creature I'm facing?" There's not really any story for it. It's a great challenge reward cycle game. Blizzard, by the way, does the best challenge reward cycle games I've seen.
On the other hand, Thief or Ultima are role-playing games versus RPG -- which I know stands for role-playing game. When I think of a role-playing game, it is now where you are charged with playing an actual role and qualitative aspects of how you play are every bit as important as what equipment you use. That's what I find most interesting. It's a lot easier to do stories there.
Even he is differentiating between RPG and role-playing games. Just like I have been saying. There are RPGs but those do not need to have role-playing, and there are role-playing games (allow role-playing) without being RPGs. And that is what confuses people, they confuse role-playing in a game with RPGs. Like I said before, one can role-play in some Grand Strategy games, but that doesn't change the fact that they are Grand Strategy games and not RPGs, it also doesn't change the fact one can role-play in Metal Gear games, but they are not RPGs.
RPGs are games that follow the RPG genre/formula. It is the full package (just like any genre of pretty much any creative work) as I keep mentioning. Role-playing can be achieved in most games you control a character, and even in games you don't control a character, like Uplink: Hacker Elite (where you don't control any character, but it still allows one to play the role of a hacker).
There are indeed several games that hybridize game genres. Spellforce, Warlords Battlecry and even Fallout New Vegas for example. These games offer the elements and wrap those elements in a full package that can both be RTS and RPG (first two game series mentioned), while Fallout New Vegas does the same with Shooter and RPG.
I think no one will deny that Richard Garriott is THE most important figure in CRPG history and here's
his take on stats-heavy RPGs:
This is my personal definition; most people don't adhere to this. Diablo, great game. Loved it. For me, I use the term "RPG" for it because it is a stats game. It's a "Do I have the best armor equipment compared to the creature I'm facing?" There's not really any story for it. It's a great challenge reward cycle game. Blizzard, by the way, does the best challenge reward cycle games I've seen.
On the other hand, Thief or Ultima are role-playing games versus RPG -- which I know stands for role-playing game. When I think of a role-playing game, it is now where you are charged with playing an actual role and qualitative aspects of how you play are every bit as important as what equipment you use. That's what I find most interesting. It's a lot easier to do stories there.
I already mentioned this in this post, but will do it again. Richard Garriott is actually saying the same thing I keep saying. RPGs are stats games and some allow role-playing, while there are other games that are not RPGs that also allow role-playing. Role-playing can happen in many game genres, not just in RPGs while there can be RPGs that do not allow role-playing. This is actually supporting what I have been saying since the beginning. It's right there, black on white
.
Similarly, Tim Cain wrote in the book explaining why Star Control 2 is an RPG. So yeah, I don't care about random posters on the internet going "Game X isn't an RPG!". Much wiser and experienced people follow a broader, more interesting definition.
And yet, what Tim Cain said doesn't conflict at all with what I say. It actually once again confirms what I keep saying... Skills are important for a game to be a RPG. Tim Cain is saying that RPGs need character skills (in this case something that works like skills in classic RPGs). So in his opinion if a game has those skills (even if they are not called skills, but work in a similar way as in RPGs) he considers it a RPG.
The ship is the character and it has it's own "skills" to deal with the game universe, player skill doesn't matter much because without having good "skills" your ship will not be able to achieve much in the game.
He also explains how the game contains other elements that can be present on other RPGs, so for him, this full package makes Star Control 2 a RPG. But the skills seem essential, since it is one of the three things what he focus when saying that for him Star Control 2 is a RPG:
You control a ship that starts off as a bare-bones hull, and as you acquire resources and credits, you can buy upgrades to improve your ship, as well as gain new crew and landing craft to replace any that were lost in battles and exploration. These features are a direct analog to the skills, items and hit points in a typical role-playing game, making Star Control 2 closer to a CRPG than an adventure game.
Also notice how the remaining things he points out are things that make a good RPG for him, and not what makes a RPG:
And like any good CRPG, Star Control 2 offers three areas of activity for the player: exploration, storyline, and combat.
So indeed, both Tim Cain and Richard Garriott say the same things as I do but in different ways
.
.
