Top 5 rpg

[Akka]

I'm more of a linguistic realist. Words and names mean what they are understood to mean. Most people consider irregardless to mean regardless; thus, irregardless means regardless. Similarly, most people (who have heard of it at all) call Diablo an RPG; thus, it is an RPG.

Except that the very fact we're having this conversation kind of prove that they don't mean the same for everyone...

Misusing words defeats the entire principle of the language, which is to act as a common medium - when people use wrongly words, they effectively sever the "common" meaning.

The one major point I'd make though is that it's a pretty damn stupid point to get hung up on when discussing classifying video games. If someone wants to call a game an RPG, and everyone understands what they mean, who cares if it is an illogical label?

Well, the problem is precisely that people don't understand what they mean, as the label covers different kind of games and as such, again defeat the very idea of making a "top game of X category", as the category is ill-defined.

Did you notice that many people actually made two lists, one for "JRPG" and one for "Western RPG" ? It's rather relevant to the problem

I'd be interested in seeing Akka's precise names and definitions for the various types of games discussed in this thread - not because I necessarily disagree with him, but because he's the one arguing for a more precise definition of what a "true" RPG is, so the burden is kinda on him to set the boundaries.

What is it, exactly, that makes something a "true" RPG? Can computer games even be true RPGs without a sentient GM behind the wheel of the experience?
Is Diablo an "action-RPG" or something else?
Should we come up with another name for JRPGs?

I already answered what I define as a RPG in the post #74.
Diablo is even less of a RPG than any "JRPG". It's nearly pure action, and it seems they just followed the habit of stitching "RPG" to everything which include experience points.
As for the name of JRPG, I think "adventure" is adequate - they are usually really the definition of having adventures. Though of course the term is a bit too vague.
Story-playing game maybe ?

 

[H4run]

What is it, exactly, that makes something a "true" RPG? Can computer games even be true RPGs without a sentient GM behind the wheel of the experience?
Is Diablo an "action-RPG" or something else?
Should we come up with another name for JRPGs?

That's the point. Diaoblo and friends already got their name, you may call it "hack and slash" game or mmorpg. How about JRPG? It surely not belong to adventure game, and surelly its nature if it is not rpg itself at least it is the closest to rpg.

If it is not an rpg what should we call it? And if say we call it "story playing game" SPG or as AKKA suggest called it as adventure game, do peoples agree with that? do that word is a convent word? Can peoples understand when I post 5 of my favourite JRPG to the top 5 most favourite adventure game? I don't think so.

In my opinion if it is not rpg we may call it JRPG.

 

[H4run]

Did you notice that many people actually made two lists, one for "JRPG" and one for "Western RPG" ? It's rather relevant to the problem

In my case it is because most of Japanese rpg are console rpg, while western rpg mostly from pc. I don't intend to separate it because I put it in the different category in my mind, maybe there are members who do that exactly as you said, while maybe there others do it because the platform of the game itself are separated.

 

[Akka]

That's the point. Diaoblo and friends already got their name, you may call it "hack and slash" game or mmorpg.

Hu ? Diablo has never been a MMO in any way.
It's "action" or "hack'n'slash", sure, but MMO ? Again, remember what the letters stand for - there was barely 4 people able to play together in Diablo, and it was actually a single player game just as much as a multi one.

In my case it is because most of Japanese rpg are console rpg, while western rpg mostly from pc.

This criteria doesn't really hold water. The overwhelming majority of Western RPG have actually been released on console (and even, most of the time, on consoles first) since at least the last decade - not that I'm happy about it, BTW.

Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Jade Empire, KotoR I & II, Mass Effect 1 & 2 & 3, Dragon Age 1 & 2, The Witcher II and countless others, have been released on console games (and most of them first and foremost for consoles).

The only argument you could make about the platforms would be that japanese games tend to not be ported onto PC, but that's about it.

 

[H4run]

Hu ? Diablo has never been a MMO in any way.
It's "action" or "hack'n'slash", sure, but MMO ? Again, remember what the letters stand for - there was barely 4 people able to play together in Diablo, and it was actually a single player game just as much as a multi one.

I also think it is not likely fit with the definition of MMORPG that's why I added hack and slash. But because some peoples regard and mix hack and slash game with mmorpg, that's why I added it.

This criteria doesn't really hold water. The overwhelming majority of Western RPG have actually been released on console (and even, most of the time, on consoles first) since at least the last decade - not that I'm happy about it, BTW.

My intention is to talk about the console that I played and put on the list, which is snes and playstation, which at that time console and pc rpg have a separated culture and game. And indeed the conversion of pc rpg to force fit it with console sometime ruin the game mechanic and appearance that one need mods to fix it (like the menu etc, we got darnfield for example for Oblivion mods to make it less console)

 

[GrayingGamer]

It seems pretty "water is wet" to me. I already pointed it and emphasized it, it's downright the very words used to define the genre : "ROLE-PLAYING game". Roleplay.

"role-playing" REQUIRES, by its very definition, the idea of being able to take meaningful decisions, chose what to say and chose what to do. If you're following the story without being able to affect it nor affect who your character is, then it's not "playing a ROLE", it's "playing a STORY". Again, there is no problem in that (I vastly prefer FF7 over BG1 for example), but you can't call a game without meaningful ability to play a role a "role-playing" game, just like you can't call a FPS a game where you see your character in the third person and you don't shoot.

By this definition alone, isn't something like a Civ game the best RPG ever? You play the role of an immortal leader of a great nation, and you have complete control over your story and destiny - will your people go extinct or conquer the world or something in-between? The number of possible stories are virtually endless?

Morrowind allows you to define who you are playing, what you do, chose who to side with and who to fight, decide what are your motives to follow (or not) the main storyline. The main storyline may have only one final outcome, but you are able to roleplay (decide who you are and how you act) on the way.

An RPG with only one ending really only creates the illusion of choice along the way - obviously none of those choices really mattered if the end result was still the same. I honestly don't remember the end of Morrowind (as a side note, it IS the only ES game I've finished), but it really is just a "kill foozle" ending no matter what path you took along the way, right?
This is where New Vegas shined - they didn't abandon the value of an overarching story (you always end up at hoover dam), but they did offer a number of pathways to reach that conclusion and a corresponding number of ways to actually experience the conclusion. It's really an RPG masterpiece IMO.

 

[H4run]

By this definition alone, isn't something like a Civ game the best RPG ever? You play the role of an immortal leader of a great nation, and you have complete control over your story and destiny - will your people go extinct or conquer or the world or something in-between? The number of possible stories are virtually endless?

I'm not speaking my mind that loud, but when I read the definition I imagine Mount and Blade:warband. But never think about civilization

An RPG with only one ending really only creates the illusion of choice along the way - obviously none of those choices really mattered if the end result was still the same. I honestly don't remember the end of Morrowind (as a side note, it IS the only ES game I've finished), but it really is just a "kill foozle" ending no matter what path you took along the way, right?
This is where New Vegas shined - they didn't abandon the value of an overarching story (you always end up at hoover dam), but they did offer a number of pathways to reach that conclusion and a corresponding number of ways to actually experience the conclusion. It's really an RPG masterpiece IMO.

True, I agree with you.

 

[GrayingGamer]

Diablo is even less of a RPG than any "JRPG". It's nearly pure action, and it seems they just followed the habit of stitching "RPG" to everything which include experience points.

This is where we definitely disagree.

To me it is clear that a major part of RPG DNA is character growth - through experience/levels, stats, and items. RPG characters usually experience virtually exponential growth throughout the game, starting as pathetic noobs, struggling to kill slimes with their wooden swords and fizzling spark spells, and ending the game as demigods, capable of slaying mythical beasts with their divine weapons and spells-of-mass-destruction. If you think about D&D (the first relatively "mainstream" RPG?), story and choice were certainly important, but experience/levels/stats/gear were absolutely vital as well.

Diablo distilled out all the dialogue and choice "stuff" (which arguably is one of things that made many RPGs such a niche genre) and focused entirely on the combat+growth mechanic. It is very much an action-RPG. Many of the jRPGs maintain the dialogue and involved story, but still distill out most of the choice (largely for production purposes - "lots of significant choices" and "engaging story" are mutually exclusive in any computer RPG).


Put another way, would a point & click adventure game (as they are usually called) that had lots of great character development (more in the literary sense), choice, and many many possible endings (but absolutely no stats, experience, levels, gear, or combat) be a better RPG than many of the games mentioned in this thread?

 

[Akka]

This is where we definitely disagree.

To me it is clear that a major part of RPG DNA is character growth - through experience/levels, stats, and items.

From the very quote you answered to :

it seems they just followed the habit of stitching "RPG" to everything which include experience points

You'll excuse me if I don't make a more developped answer, but your "Civ is a RPG if you are purposedly obtuse enough" didn't really give me any motivation to bother.

 

[H4run]

I think both Malachi and Akka have their point, I really agree with Malachi regarding "An RPG with only one ending really only creates the illusion of choice along the way - obviously none of those choices really mattered if the end result was still the same." This is exactly what I think in my mind, however I don't agree in the last of his post where he try to categorize Diablo as rpg, I agree in Akka in this point that JRPG have the closest relation with western rpg.

The things that I don't like with "hack and slash" game is, it just focusing on killing more npc in the dungeon that been rewarded to another killing more npc in other dungeon, seem the game is so repetitive and more action that lack or totally absent of other important rpg element, which the most important part of the rpg for me is the storyline. In rpg your successful or failure to the mission may lead to unpredictable result, it may lead to like winning a ship that can travels you around continent, gaining an npc friend, or even deliver you to the entertainment part like gold sources in final fantasy 7, increasing relationship with other npc, or even trigger romance for example, and many more.

But in hack and slash, dungeon only reward you with another dungeon, while in adventure game, puzzle only reward you with another puzzle, which for me is quite linier and less dynamic. And both of you present your argument quite well, as I nearly been convinced by Akka argument, and also I partly been convinced by Malachi argument. And it is quite an interesting discussion.

 

[civvver]

Per akka's definition in an rpg you need to choose what to say and do. I'm fine with that definition, though I loosely use rpg to describe the leveling aspect of many action games, and I think that's how most people do. Diablo only satisfies one of those requirements as far as I'm aware, I've never actually played it (played torchlight and others), but you don't make conversational decisions right? I'm guessing you can choose which dungeons to run, and you choose what gear to use, how to level your character etc. I do not consider diablo a full rpg game, it's a subset, really considered an action game with rpg elements, but by using the term rpg when describing it it conveys the leveling aspect much more easily than saying yeah it's an action game and you level up and get gear to increase your powers. Hack n slash and dungeon crawler are terms pretty much coined by diablo players to describe the game because that's exactly what you do in it.

Similarly there are rogue-like games, games that have loot and some stats and levels and randomness and limited choices, but no plot conversations and character development. I wouldn't call FTL an rpg but if I were telling a friend who wasn't familiar with rogue-like term I might say it's like a sci fi squad rpg.

It irks me though when people try to say dragon age (mainly 2 but sometimes origins) and mass effect 2 and 3 aren't rpgs though. How you play and the conversations you have with npcs directly impacts the final outcome. I think they just see the 3rd person shooter actions parts of mass effect and the rpg purists go how can this be? Where's my d20 roll to determine if my rocket launcher hit? Why can't I choose more than two responses to this conversation?

Another point that really has no bearing on anything, mmo rpgs need their own category. If you play world of warcraft as a single player it's barely an rpg at all. It might as well be a hack n slash like diablo but in a more open world instead of dungeons. There are no choices. You get quest 1 from an npc, turn it in, get quest 2. There's disjointed story depending on what quests you run but every single quest and story line turns out exactly the same. Where they get away with calling it an rpg is because the human players can choose to be their character. Go on an rpg server, develop a backstory, develop real relationships with other players all pretending to be orc warriors or dwarven blacksmiths or whatever. But hardly anyone actually plays it that way (I didn't). It's really the biggest rpg sham of all!

 

[Akka]

I really agree with Malachi regarding "An RPG with only one ending really only creates the illusion of choice along the way - obviously none of those choices really mattered if the end result was still the same."

This is actually pretty much missing the core point by oversimplifying it. If I were to use a (admitedly a bit exagerated) parallel, it would be like to say that you don't have free will in life because in the end you die and as such there is only one outcome.
It's technically true, but it's missing what free will is about.

If a story has only one technical ending, but you can approach the ending in several different ways, and the events up this ending are vastly influenced by your choices, then it's a red herring trying to use the ending as an argument to disprove that choices happened and mattered (it can be jarring, but it doesn't make the game any less of a RPG, because it's not the point of the RPG).
Conversely, a game can provide two (or more) different endings and have absolutely nothing about "roleplay" - Visual novels provide fine examples of that, as they basically only offer you one or two meaningful choices (if any) and your character is completely defined, from who he is to what he says and even exactly what he feels.

For the practical example, in Morrowind, I can side with several different sides, I can chose who I am, I can decide (and express) why I do what I do and what are my motivations - I can believe I'm truly Nerevar reborn, or I can be a scam using the legend for his own benefit, or I can be an imperial mole, etc.
There may be only one mechanical ending, but I can roleplay all the while - so Morrowind IS a RPG (though it's pretty bad on the dialogue department, I'll gladly admit that.

Number of endings are rather irrelevant. Actual meaningful choices during the game that come from how you play your characters are. The former is often a consequence from the latters, but it's correlation more than causation.

I'd say the true defining factor for a RPG is the agency of the character you play*.

* Caveat for self-styled (t)wits : when playing the character is actually the main point and the core of the game, not an incidental detail.

Another point that really has no bearing on anything, mmo rpgs need their own category. If you play world of warcraft as a single player it's barely an rpg at all. It might as well be a hack n slash like diablo but in a more open world instead of dungeons. There are no choices. You get quest 1 from an npc, turn it in, get quest 2. There's disjointed story depending on what quests you run but every single quest and story line turns out exactly the same. Where they get away with calling it an rpg is because the human players can choose to be their character. Go on an rpg server, develop a backstory, develop real relationships with other players all pretending to be orc warriors or dwarven blacksmiths or whatever. But hardly anyone actually plays it that way (I didn't). It's really the biggest rpg sham of all!

It's mostly true, but some few select MMORPG (very notably SWTOR) actually allow you to roleplay and can be considered somewhat true RPG.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I think for me, the most important aspect of an RPG is the amount of "space" it leaves FOR ME (and my ideas) in the game. It leaves space for me within the character, to create some sort of personnality and style of progression for that character within the game. What would I do if I were McCat the Kajit thief in Skyrim? Some games where I don't create the character still leave a lot of space for me to characterize the protagonist in my own fashion, like Mass Effect, just because there are so many interactions with the NPCs, lots of lore, a choice to do or not do certain missions, and a choice of order in which to do them, etc etc etc. But japanese style rpgs don't really leave any space for me in the game and I'm more of a spectator. They are more concerned with telling a story, which isn't really a problem.

I don't find the game mechanics themselves have much to do with what constitutes an RPG. Levels, loot, and whatnot. It's really about how much space is left for me, and to some extent how much freedom of movement and progression is there. I would even say that the end-result (whether or not the decisions I made had an impact at the very end) is not necessarily a primary concern either.

The question of "but then what genre are JRPGs in" isn't really a problem, I mean, this genre is big enough to be its own genre, and have its own top 5.

 

[Akka]

Totally agree with the above post. THAT is the essence of roleplaying.

 

[GrayingGamer]

You'll excuse me if I don't make a more developped answer, but your "Civ is a RPG if you are purposedly obtuse enough" didn't really give me any motivation to bother.

I'm trying to get you to flesh out your definition... of course I don't think Civ should be classified as an RPG, but by your limited definition it is. You can keep ignoring my points about how important character progression (level/stats/gear) is, but then why are we here if not to have a discussion about this...

Like, Rub'Rum, I find your statement, "I don't find the game mechanics themselves have much to do with what constitutes an RPG. Levels, loot, and whatnot. It's really about how much space is left for me, and to some extent how much freedom of movement and progression is there," a bit contradictory.

What progression are you talking about if not character progression? Isn't the pathway from wimp to hero (through level/stat/gear progression) a fundamental part of RPGs?

 

[Akka]

I'm trying to get you to flesh out your definition...

And I see no point in trying to flesh out anything if the person is intent to twist whatever I say into something absurd rather than trying to get the point. It's not like if it were a contest of "try to corner me into being unable to find a loop into your wording".

 

[Rub'Rum]

What progression are you talking about if not character progression?

Story progression mainly, but also a bit of mechanics progression indeed. But it's not the main thing for me, which is why my sentence was worded "It's really about how much space is left for me, and to some extent how much freedom of movement and progression is there"

 

[H4run]

Well I guess that explain everything, from Civver I know the origin of rpg which is from pen and paper game where you can develop and customize your own character, action and story the way you want, that later this kind of game been adapted to pc and it become what we know now as rpg game.

I want to summarize the discussion, well I have lots of free time now as I finished most of the things that I should do, and this things is kind like entertaining for me.

So the most important part of it as it stated by Rub'Rum:

I think for me, the most important aspect of an RPG is the amount of "space" it leaves FOR ME (and my ideas) in the game. It leaves space for me within the character, to create some sort of personnality and style of progression for that character within the game.

While in JRPG things are not really like that, as you just been given an option of answers that this answers again trigger another story, and the feeling, motivation of the character is already define by the game creator as again been stated by Rub'Rum:

japanese style rpgs don't really leave any space for me in the game and I'm more of a spectator. They are more concerned with telling a story, which isn't really a problem.

and Akka:

Conversely, a game can provide two (or more) different endings and have absolutely nothing about "roleplay" - Visual novels provide fine examples of that, as they basically only offer you one or two meaningful choices (if any) and your character is completely defined, from who he is to what he says and even exactly what he feels.

While in Morrowind even though it seem like there only one conclusion and it seem all the option and things that you chose along the way is just an illusion that not really determine anything about the ending, however still you define who is your character along the way, Akka again give quite well explanation:

For the practical example, in Morrowind, I can side with several different sides, I can chose who I am, I can decide (and express) why I do what I do and what are my motivations - I can believe I'm truly Nerevar reborn, or I can be a scam using the legend for his own benefit, or I can be an imperial mole, etc.
There may be only one mechanical ending, but I can roleplay all the while - so Morrowind IS a RPG

So in the end, I think it is valid, that JRPG is not a conventional rpg or what rpg should intend to be, it is a separated genre called: JRPG. not RPG. Well that is a whole new things for me, at least someone who explain it to me is not a japanese underminer and western nationalist, which mostly that kind of argument been thrown by the later. Now everything seem make sense to me.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

In my mind a game is a real RPG when central plot is only an excuse to give the game some sense of direction or at least a final purpose so it is not a pure sandbox, but which can be as secondary as you wish, leaving total freedom to be whoever you want to be and do whatever you want to do, so as Rub'Rum says, leaving you all the space you need to develop your own way, to take the role of a character who lives and evolves in the game world with as much freedom as possible. That is a pure RPG for me. However it is not a black and white thing. IMO there is a whole range or degrees of "RPGness" with the likes as Morrowind being in the maximun "RPGness" extreme, the Witcher for instance being in the middle and JPRGs in the other extreme of the scale, with some RPG elements but also with many adventure elements.

 

[H4run]

I heard Morrowind was quite less in rpgness in compare to fall out:2, I never played that game myself, I just read it in a forum. But you know, the more I think about it the more I see why Morrowind lots superior than oblivion, you might laugh at me how can I question such things but Oblivion is beautiful for me. Because in Morrowind for example, if you want to continue the quest on fighter guild you will find it hardly to maintain it without harming your relation with thief guild, this kind of dilema and polemic give you a strong sense that you are trap inside the (cold) war between the guild and you must chose to pick a side, even radically you must assassinate important person of the thief guild or in some option in fighter guild itself to move in promotion.

I remember how I left in dilema because of this dirty quest, and later on I found the way how to get out of it cleanly and still got the promotion by founding the culprit in fighter guild that start all of this mess.

But again that is awesome, if a guild quest in Oblivion is like 10 than Morrowind is 100. Just amazing experience on gaming.