I don't feel the need to replay Skyrim, but New Vegas has a lot to offer even if you choose the same decisions, because it gives you more options for build, to become the person your character acts as and aspires to be, both in gameplay and dialogue
Fallout New Vegas is such an amazing game. Subsequently, it’s set my expectations crazy high. To this day I haven't found a single RPG that I have enjoyed as much as New Vegas.
Nintendo desperately needs to revisit this series. > sure, dumb the franchise down with Go, Let's Go, and S&S, but at least provide something more through spinoffs.
This is the first time I’ve heard that music since I finished that game at release, I guess it’s a compliment I could tell it was from Colosseum in just a few seconds.
RPG is my favorite genre of games, but I can't even use the tag to search for RPGs when I browse, because my search results are saturated with games that are decidedly not RPGs.
When I first started this video I wasnt really interested in the topic, but then all of a sudden the video is ending good job on editing and the voice-over, I loved the comedy spread throughout especially at the end with subbing keep it up man
The thesis of this video uses a really modern understanding of "role playing" that's like, 20 years old tops. In the olden times, rpgs were just tabletop war games where you only controlled your commander instead of an entire force. So saying "you have to be able to rp in an rpg" is a very new idea and runs almost counter to what the rpgs of old were: turn based tactics games. Fire Emblem is actually incredibly close to an old-school rpg.
Definitely. I would also argue that it is almost impossible to "role-play" in RPGs, with decisions being closer to flipping to a certain page in a CYOA book. To me, a rough definition for an RPG is a game where your power is determined by the build of a character.
Modern Fire Emblem actually has less choice impact than older games. Characters dying in older games can directly impact support dialogue or even bar you from recruiting certain characters down the line
Fuk99999 i can’t agree with that. Despite the fact that you have mentioned in 3H just al the beginig you have to make a decicion wich influences a lot the game it self. A part from that you can personalize your team a lot, you can decide wich sutdents you want to fight with. Moreover the first FE games doesn’t allows you to change class as 3H does, now you can do basically what ever you want
@@arnaul_de_lapras5853 allowing you to retroactively change your decisions is a very Un-RPG mechanic. An RPG always makes you deal with the consequences of your choices.
Actually no, if a unit die in your FE run, then nothing more happens, he just die and you can't use him anymore, and when you finish the game, the game spits you to the face your idiocy by telling you when he died. So you are pretty wrong.
Great video exploring your definition. I think some of the difficulty in defining RPG or any modern genre comes from the issue of them typically involving multiple mechanics which may or may not be present to a greater or lesser extent in any particular game. I'd go for a more flexible definition that isn't a strict binary of RPG/not, but recognises some games have more RPG elements than others, and that games that have a higher number of these elements and utilise them to a greater effect are more accurately described as RPGs.
Good point. Also calling Kingdom Hearts an action-adventure game with RPG style gameplay mechanics might be accurate, but too long. And calling it just an action-adventure game doesn't describe the game well. I'd go with a system that isn't really super descriptive, but I think is a step to the right direction: The genre of RPG is divided into the genres of _Unfixed story role-playing game_ and _Fixed story role-playing game._ (URPG and FRPG) Kingdom Hearts would be a _fixed story action role-playing game,_ FARPG. Fallout 4 and Skyrim would be URPGs. After thinking about it, surprisingly I'd say with pretty much all RPGs it's pretty easy to figure out which genre it fits in. That's not too bad, right?
@@metawarp7446 calling Kingdom Hearts a action adventure game kinda does describe it well as there is action and adventure though that is a catch all term then it turns into "What is a action adventure?" other than "What is a RPG?"
This is kind of pedantic in the sense that it's prioritizing the literal reading of the term over its actual, real-life usage. Basically prescriptivism over descriptivism. It's like criticizing roguelikes for not being visually similar to Rogue, or metroidvanias for being neither Metroid nor Castlevania. RPG, among other usages, is the name of a certain genre of video games, and whether or not you do what would be considered in a strict sense "role-playing" is not exactly relevant/necessary and hasn't been since the days of the NES, if not earlier. The genre is instead characterized typically by gameplay-related or mechanical similarities rather than the player's ability to affect the main character and/or the plot. Whether that genre should be called RPG or not is actually a separate discussion, but that's the name it has had for several decades so good luck arguing against it now. The word metroidvania hasn't been showing any signs of going away either, and it's even less accurate. Splitting the term into JRPG and WRPG does help separate two different kinds of RPG mechanics, but in reality that's not really very helpful since it relies not only on stereotypical expectations of how Japanese vs Western RPGs operate, but even if an American company were to make a Final Fantasy clone, you'd get people saying how it's not really a JRPG because it's not technically from Japan and it's not a WRPG either because it doesn't fit under the expected mechanics of one.
well said completely agree. How the term is used is what defines the term great. the guy in the video likes the traditional term that has not been in use for like 40 years, terms change and that's why it is not worth the effort to use the older term RPG instead the newer term RPG.
@@Tethloach1 Okay, but whats the point in having a term that doesn't mean anything. If it evolves from a term that at one point had a defined meaning, and has now devolved into "you have some degree of character customization", whats the point in the term even being used anymore?
@@Wodferd Words have no intrinsic meaning, and the usages of words has always evolved and everyone knows this, because if you ever tried to read Shakespeare you know that to understand what's being said, you actually need to know how the words were used at that time. I'll reiterate, words have no intrinsic meanings, only usages.
@@wibblemu9 words retain the meaning intended by the person who said them, they have meaning but not perceived meaning, intended meaning. This is why SJWs struggle with language - they ignore intended meaning for perceived meaning.
He does admit that the discussion is more opinion based than a descriptive dissection of various RPGs that have existed to this point. You can certainly expand on the meaning of "role" in role-playing game. You can think of CoD games as RPG because you are playing in the role of a soldier. It's a linear experience and you can't do much to change the outcome of the game. One could think of Saints Row as RPG because you are playing in the role of a psychopathic gang leader and it's a sandbox game where you can do whatever you want. You are usually presented with a binary choice when there is the option to choose but then again I don't feel that those decisions are all that impactful. Mount & Blade can certainly be regarded as RPG because not only does it let you create your character, not only is it a sandbox experience, it also lets you make lasting decisions that will affect your game in the long run. What this video demonstrates is that some titles have stronger claim to the title rather than diminish the RPGs that don't. I find myself thinking that a game is RPG as soon as I see numbers, a number of different mechanics one can toy around with in the game such as crafting, combat, dialogue to name a few, equipping gear, inventory management and so on.
So what you're describing sounds very much like a western RPG. wRPGs tend to play a little more like D&D in that you're a "you" character and you play through your own experience within the setting. Contrast with jRPGs which are often more narrowly focused and have you inhabiting an existing character. How much this character you control might be their own person varies, but you will generally be allowed to perform actions as you see fit in their shoes while the game justifies this around you. Ideally these decisions you make as these characters do affect things and even divert you to a different story path, but as jRGPs are more narrowly focused, they will usually have fewer significant story branches and most of the "bad" ones will just end- typically long before the true/most ideal ending.
I understand that JRPGs are a different genre entirely than their Western counterparts, but I think it's not quite right to dismiss claims that some aren't RPGs. There are absolutely JRPGs that don't have any role-playing at all, where your actions aren't influential on the world at all (MOTHER comes to mind here). I think it's fair to question if calling those games "RPGs" is proper, because they miss some of the essentials of the genre. That might mean that we'll redefine JRPG or create a new category when there are games historians, but until then, it's a fair discussion
@@andrewvalentine5347 My guess as to why they're called role-playing games when you don't get to role-play yourself like we seem to expect in the west is that...well with traditional jRPGs, what else do you call them? They don't offer any other systems that would merit a different genre title. As Fudj said, you play as a character and this perform their role in any game, so bareft of any other defining aspect to name the genre for, this became Role Playing Game.
@@fisherdotogg My understanding of the history of the JRPG is that they were originally explicitly modeled on their Western counterparts in the late 80s and stayed decently similar until the mid-90s. The problem as I see it is that they've developed into something different than they were that eschews most of the actual role-playing. It could be that JRPG describes a specific enough genre that is distinct from Western-style RPGs to the point where the name being a relic doesn't matter (Dark Souls seems to suggest this since it's a Japanese RPG that never gets called a JRPG), in which case this isn't a super important discussion
@@andrewvalentine5347 Yeah, they're just different genres now that diverged from a common point in history. As far as I could glean from the video, it felt like Fudj acknowledged that jRPGs existed but A) could not define them, B) did not address them, and C) failed to recognise or even bring up the concept of a wRPG which was precisely what he argued an RPG was supposed to be. Honestly, both are valid genres, he just seems confused by the similar names despite seeming to be sooooort of aware of a distinction.
It's funny how RPG has no relationship to the style of combat. We now add that the style of combat and slap RPG on it because of the progression like fire emblem is a SRPG (strategic) His definition captures the ideas of Western RPGs perfectly. Your playing a character you create to insert into the world. While Japanese RPGs your 'helping' a character progress through their own stories.
@@knightshade2654 i mean isn't any simulation game a rpg? you make a character and do whatever you feel like when it comes to stuff like animal crossing or minecraft. Though Visual novels are not games in the first place they are just interactive books
It’s almost like taxonomy is a complex art of categorization that at its core is subjective and arbitrary. RPG is like the “family” or even “order” levels of classification, with 2-3 subcategories following, leading to a wide variety of games that can still be considered RPG’s - from the linear, turn-based JRPGs to the open-world sandboxes of Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and the Witcher.
> Skyrim has a story it's want to tell you, so you can't kill these characters that are largely irrelevant to that story Skyrim didn't even have a good story in the first place lol
Isucc Long there’s a difference between hardcore Skyrim players and elder scrolls enthusiasts. I am an elder scrolls enthusiast and thought it was nearly perfect. And a great setup for the next title.
Zelda and Pokemon are somewhat strange examples for RPGs, specifically with recent games: they make you follow the story, your role is already set and the world around you is very distinct in what you can and can’t do, but they give you a lot of options for customization and recent games have given you a ton more dialogue options will all kinds of NPCs rather than just “yes” or “no”.
I think dismissing JRPGs is a major flaw with this video. You're focusing way too much on the classic western RPG, thus games like Pokémon and Kingdom Hearts do not fit your definition. They are RPGs, just not the kind of RPG you are familiar with. JRPGs are the crux of this issue, as the first few *big* Japanese RPGs (Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Megami Tensei, etc.) were loosely inspired by western RPGs, but evolved into a different thing entirely, which is where Pokémon, Kingdom Hearts and other games draw from. They are no longer drawing from the western RPG, they are drawing from the trendsetters of the late 80s. But they are still RPGs because those older games they are based on are considered RPGs as well.
I consider an rpg to be quite specific, a game where the roleplaying is a primary focus, specifically involving crpgs or games like the witcher. Similarly the only jrpgs i consider actual rpgs are the trails games and the megami tensei games because they have that role playing and choice emphasis.
Hey man, I've been binging your videos. Great content! Now that I've complimented you, I'm gonna be an arse and point out you say 'less' a lot when you mean to say 'fewer' Ta bruh!
I was trying to think of other examples where the strict features of the genre are not how people popularly categorize the game and came up with Banjo-Kazooie vs. Ocarina of Time, which are of course quite different games, but they share core 3D movement, combat, and general interactivity with the world and characters, and there's a case to be made that they are more similar to each other than Banjo-Kazooie to Crash Bandicoot or Ocarina to, say, GTA3. Probably unfair comparisons. I dunno. I feel like what people actually mean when they talk about genre isn't mechanics, but the game "lineage"-the answer to the question, "which 80s game is this game's ancestor?" Banjo-Kazooie's ancestor is Super Mario Bros., OoT's is Zelda 1. In that vein, so-called JRPGs trace to Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, whereas so-called Western RPGs trace to games like Ultima and Wizardry, and both genres are ultimately based on D&D and other Tabletop RPGs, which is where they got their name. But just as with a family, two grandchildren might look and act differently from each other, and two unrelated people might be very similar.
The zelda serie is more of an adventure than an rpg. Not an adventure game in the sense of the old point and click adventure. Zelda is its own genre in itself.
The main reason I dislike how RPG is used nowadays is because any time I hear the term RPG I have no idea what I'm getting into. Am I getting into a Witcher 3, Fallout 76, New Vegas, or Kingdom Hearts, just hearing RPG doesn't actually tell me anything useful. I feel the same way about the term MMO, I used to know what kind of game I was getting into if it was listed as an MMO, now if I go look up MMOs I'll find things like Destiny, Smite, and GTA Online. Call of Duty could probably be an MMO, I've found other team based shooters categorized as MMOs.
I remember that the term RPG was so vague and misrepresents the games that fit under it so much that I never played pokemon for years as I thought that it was like a role play game where you pretended to be a pokemon or pokemon trainer like the five year olds on roblox' adopt me
a lot of modern "RPG"s seem more like video game fantasy novels, honestly. Sure, there might be character creation, but isn't that the same as imagining how the main character looks in a novel? For both, the focus is on the pre-set story. The only real difference is that you can do video-game-y things like fighting and trading items. Remove that and those games literally become visual novels, which then explains why JRPGs work so well. Crossing video game novels with visual novels can pretty much just be expected to work perfectly well. So yeah, I propose we create the genre of VGN (video game novels) and relocate about 80% of what we currently call "RPG" to that.
Both Skyrim and New Vegas have many side storyline threads, but the main difference is Skyrim let’s you Roleplay by choosing WHICH storylines you participate in, and NV lets you Roleplay HOW you participate in EVERY storyline.
@@stayskeptic3923 yeah i was thinking the same thing. to me adventure games stopped meaning the interactive fiction type pretty quickly(think secret of monkey island) i just saw those as puzzle type games. when i was a kid at some point i definetly saw games that are closer to zelda types or even metroidvanias adventure games and the former monkey island ones were completely erased from my memory. it feels soemwhat surreal thinking about it now, maybe i'm just nostalgic.
I still call them adventure games. So Breath of the Wild, Witcher 3, Skyrim, open world adventure. New Vegas, Mass effect, First Person Shooter Adventure. Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Super Metroid, sidescrolling adventure. When they call everything a RPG, the genre is no longer descriptive of anything.
@@Jrdotan they are adventure games. Xenoblade, Octopath Traveler, Lost Odyssey are RPG's for example. Either turn based or timed combat just like tabletop games where RPG's were invented.
Good video. I think Fallout and Fallout 2 demonstrated how you can tell a mainline quest story with only one ending (Master's ending in F1 is more of a game over) and still give your player's freedom in how they get there. It's not quite as open-ended as F:NV (what if I want to play a character that really believes in The Unity/The Enclave?), but at least it doesn't restrict killing certain characters because they're "too important" like in Bethesda RPGs.
In Skyrim's main questline, a 'bad guy' is just a rude prick who still does basically all the same things as a 'good guy' but is unpleasant to people along the way
Bethesda doesn't let you play as a bad guy any more. You can be a good guy, or an asshole who does the right thing. At some point they decided that you just... can't do too many bad things. Which then makes things like the Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim so nonsensical. You always do the right thing regardless of if you like it... but also kill the emperor and destabilise the region?
I would consider Earthbound to be an rpg, even though you have a party of 4, it all leads to the same ending no matter if you change the names of your characters. It all leads to the same end
I have spent *countless* hours trying to figure out what an RPG is...Oh my god!Thank you, Fudj! Does anyone else think there should be a list, like "An RPG must have at least 3 out of 5 of the following: 1. Modifiable skills 2. Alternate endings 3..." etc., I don't know why I find this so necessary...(??)
There are a lot of RPG's that don't have multiple endings you know, heck some don't even have endings at all you the player decides when it ends Story of Seasons: Friends of Mineral Town is a example of that. Though it does bring a question of how much RPG elements makes a game a RPG. Though Turn based RPG's and Action RPG's are distinctly both RPG's just one is turn based and one is real time. And only a idiot would say that only Turn Based are RPG's while others are games with RPG Elements but they are disqualified from even being a RPG simply because they are not turn based
I think some familiarity with tabletop RPGs is actually pretty necessary to figuring out this problem, subjective as it is. As someone who's played a bit of not only D&D but some more contemporary systems, the big distinguishing feature of RPGs from games in general (not just videogames) is systemized collaborative storytelling and choice, OVER skill and strategy- often (but not always) employing elements of chance. It's still ultimately a game rather than like, a no holds barred improv acting/writing session because it's systemized, and things like combat or social dice rolls introduce a certain amount of conflict and strategy which impact events, but broadly the emphasis is still moreso on the broad choices and story. Some tabletop games like World of Darkness (urban fantasy setting) go so far as to refer to the "game master" (the person who designs and runs the session as opposed to the players) as "the storyteller" for this reason. There are systems of varying complexity with all sorts of stats and settings, but the point is that the players are NOT just winning challenges. In fact for decades players often have derided certain other players as "munchkins" for playing too competitively, making beefy combat characters with no personality solely to kill monsters and gain EXP in the most boring game-breaking way possible (the saddest and most pointless thing a player can do, next to lying about dice rolls.) Keeping all of this in mind, while I think RPG is a flimsy and subjective (and often misleading) term, it is grossly overused. Evaluating game's basic principles like whether they prioritize choice over skill as a whole make the term relevant and useful as more and more games employ certain superficial elements like stats and character creation.
This video does a good job of defining an RPG based on its literal meaning but I can't help but feel that it just... doesn't matter? Like, ok some games we call RPGs don't fit a literal definition of a role-playing game but so what? If say refer to something like an RPG with the intent to communicate that it has a story and the typical stats and magic and what have you and that's how most other people understand what the phrase RPG then why does an actual literal definition of role-playing game matter? I don't mean to be reductive, it's an interesting video, I guess I just don't understand the 'why'.
Well, why discuss anything, right? I just think it's a fun and interesting topic! It doesn't have to matter or even change anything imo, sometimes it's just fun to exchange ideas and opinions
@@NocturnalFudj Yeah, it is an interesting topic for sure, like I said in my comment, I didn't want to come across as reductive, I suppose I just got the impression that video was building to reason or purpose and then it just ended which kinda caught me off guard.
...maybe the "genre" of games that most people call "RPG" is really "management"? Or perhaps tactical/strategy? I mean, yeah, so then there are the games people call tactical or strategy RPGs, but from what limited experience I've had with alleged "RPG" games, they seem to be defined by a battle system that plays like a collectible card game, a custom chess game or some kind of weird Frankenstein-ish team sports simulator (and besides "experience" essentially progressing the story by soft-locking everything, that seems to be what makes the "stats and numbers and levels" relevant). Honestly, a big chunk of the gaming name conventions seems to consist of superficially comparing games to things gamers don't really understand (I mean, I'm not saying gamers ain't woke, but...) Take "First Person Shooter", for example. I probably don't have to explain that the name is borrowed from literary analysis, or that gamers think it should be called thus because the player sees through the playable character's eyes; however, their failure to define what would qualify as a "second person" game is truly ironic. You see, they don't actually know what "first person" means; they think it's referring to the perspective of the reader when it's actually that of the narrator. "Third person" means that person telling the story is disconnected from it altogether; they don't appear as a character nor directly affect the story nor are they directly affected by the story. If you wanna be "that guy", the narrator might be a background character or live in the same world after the fact or whatever, but the point is that the narrator is on the outside looking in; third person narrators say "they". As far as games are concerned, you mostly see this in "god games", games like the Sims where the gameplay/core mechanics, or the "game master" as it were, the game's equivalent of a narrator, operates at a level above that at which the "NPCs", and any possible stories, operate. But what about all those games where you're controlling characters like r/c cars? Aren't those "third person" games? That's what gamers have been calling them, but ironically they're actually "first person" games. Confused? Then I'll explain. "First person" perspective describes when a character in a story is also the person telling the story; they're essentially eye witnesses recounting events. This often means they're cast as the protagonist of the story, but there are instances of secondary characters giving second-hand accounts of someone else's story; point is, first person narrators say "I". While not exactly literary, a good example of a "first person" story is Steven Universe. Everything's told from Steven's "perspective"; he's always present and nothing is revealed to the audience that isn't also revealed to Steven. So in a game, this would mean that the "game master" is the playable character; that character _is_ the game. In something like Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic _is_ the game and thus it is a "first person" game. So then what about the alleged "First Person Shooters"? See, that's the thing; _those_ are the "second person" games that gamers have had so much trouble pinning down. What you have to understand is that second person narrators say "you"; they get the reader involved in the story and thus the reader becomes a character, again as the protagonist in most cases. In a game, this means that the screen ain't the fourth wall; it's your eyes. You're not controlling Master Chief; you _are_ Master Chief. _You_ are in the game. Everything relates to _you_. Not "I"; "you". Games that shine the spotlight squarely upon the gamer are second person games.
Nope! Now that we have VR it's become obvious that you control master chief like a tank or robot, and you are not ever master chief! If you were correct VR would be overflowing with superior FPS games
@@joeygreathouse3029 ... don't you mean SPS? You're missing the point; even if you were controlling a literal tank the game would still be second person. Hell, even in something like Night Trap where the premise sets a screen squarely between you and the action, you're still in the limelight. By your logic, you aren't the "stranger" in the Myst games either because you're just changing slides.
I don't really get what you're trying to say. The point of calling a game a first person shooter, third person shooter, or 'second person shooter' all has to do with perspective. The same goes for first/second/third person in literary analysis. For literary analysis, first person has the narrator be the main character, second person has the narrator be a side character, and third person has the narrator be separated from the characters. Replace narrator with camera and you literally get the definition of first/second/third person games.
@@TheDevelo Naw, see, you're forgetting that the narrator is relaying the story to the audience; the narrator's perspective and ours ain't the same. When it's the "main character", they relay it to us like an eye witness account; thus our perspective is watching the narrator act out the story on stage. When they're completely removed, it's like they're giving color commentary to something equally alien to everyone. When they're the side character, guess who the "main character" is? The person they're addressing; you. The story they're telling is seen from _your_ perspective, thus the story that _you're_ in is a second person _narrative_ where the _narrator_ is a second party rather than first or third party. It isn't about you, it's about the narrator; that's what's tripping so many people up.
This is a discussion topic I've always pondered after having grown up with jrpgs like pokemon then being introduced to games like fallouts 1 and 2, and I feel like I could go through the process of distinguishing genres but I honestly feel like it'd be a waste of effort on my part. Who are we gonna convince we're right other than ourselves, and what sort of effect would making the exception the rule really have in the end? Marketing and culture have basically won what constitutes an rpg, as is the case for adventure games and more.
Great takes, fully agree with you here. I do wish you had brought up games like Baldur's Gate, Fallout 1 & 2, or Divinity, these are great examples of RPGs and I think they coincide with your definitions. They're often called CRPGs, and I think how closely newer "RPGs" are to them the closer they are to being genuine RPGs. I think New Vegas is a perfect example, it's closer to feeling like Fallout 1&2 than anything Bethesda has ever developed. Staying true to these roots is what defines a true RPG to me. Maybe we should look at games like Skyrim or Fallout 3 as a different subgenre of RPG. Maybe they should be called "Light RPGs" or something - they're light on critical RPG elements but clearly take inspiration from them.
In Skyrim, I'm pretty sure you got caught trying to cross the border. As for the topic at hand, I always say the RPG genre is more of a spectrum but you know them when you see them. That said, many concepts and mechanics that originated in RPG's have been hijacked by other genres, which has only muddied the RPG genre further.
It's quite simple, needs gameplay similar to old school tabletop games like Dungeons&Dragons with turn based or timed combat, not real time combat. Any real time combat is disqualified from being a true RPG and might just be an adventure or action game with RPG elements.
I feel like part of the issue is that you kind of shrug off the term jrpg early on. You're right- it's different from early rpgs (which came to be known as western rpgs) and are known as roleplaying games in the context that you play the role of a predefined character with less agency through a game with a large focus on a set story. Whether it should still have rpg in the name is debatable, but I feel like treating something like kingdom hearts as an isolated game and comparing it to modern warfare 2 instead of tackling jrpgs as a whole just doesnt tell the whole story.
A game in which you make numbers increase basically. By today's standards for RPGs even cookie clicker would pass as an RPG because RPGs are all about increasing stats these days and the amount of cookies you have is basically a stat.
J-RPGs and J-Tabletop RPGs are very similar in that they are both very rigid in story outcome. Japanese table tops are more like reading a play with friends with occasional fights, and cooking.
Easy solution, call games that deal mainly with numbers rather than making choices that matter Character Sheet Games. You're more concerned with the numbers than the character, then the game becomes about the sheet rather than the character.
immediately after watching this UA-cam recommends me "a solid 20 minutes of useless information" never have a been more deeply and personally offended and attacked.
This is like the South Park episode where Stan and gang were calling Harley Bikers "fags", and in the end, Webster ended up changing the definition of "fag" from derogatory homosexual slang to "Harley Bikers"
Wait, but don't you already "choose your role that you want to play" when choosing what game to even play? So shouldn't that first rule be redundant and not exist?
16:00 So I don't think this game is that replayable That's where you are wrong. Something in this game makes it quite replayable even if the story is very linear
I think dismissing jRPGs completely is incredibly shortsighted. there's a reason that the terms Japanese RPG and Western RPG exist. In Japan, their rpgs came to be about playing the role of the character you're given and playing their story through with them, while in Western rpgs you typically have your own character, hand made by you. both have their own strengths and weaknesses but to throw jRPGs in the bin right out of the gate is, like I said, severely short sighted and makes the discussion not worth having imo
JRPGs are about as painful as 4th edition D&D with a single player managing multiple pre-made sheets and a first-time dungeon master trying to make things more complicated than they should be with homebrew gimmicks and forcefully telling his story without taking in consideration the player’s actions, nor implementing a difficulty curve in favor of spikes. It’s somehow simultaneously easy enough for a baby to complete and stupidly complex that requires a supercomputer to figure out how the bizarre mechanics even work half the time. If I beat a boss and still get my ass handed to me in the cutscene because story or continue to see tutorial pop ups for some newly-introduced ssa-sdrawkcab gameplay mechanic that defenestrates everything I learned 30+ hours into a semi-linear game, then there’s a problem with the core design philosophy of the genre. At this point they might as well just produce a 25-40 episode anime and cut the bullshit.
Actually the reason jrpg is what it is is because of technical limitations. There was this japanese guy that liked western rpgs (western rpgs back then were turn based dnd like, you still could choose your character). He tries to bring rpgs to japan but Japans pc were not good enough so he just took the turn base system and left everything else. So jrpg are literally a lesser rpg.
peoples views on what an RPG actually is has been completely warped because companies will tag any game with any remote RPG element as an RPG to increase its reach.
Yeah I think you made a good distinction at the beginning with traditional rpg vs jrpg, and perhaps peoples definition of 'what is an rpg' mostly comes down to whether they grew up playing pen and paper, PC or a Console
just because one game is a sandbox rpg and the other has you play a set role, doesnt make either of the two less of an rpg. the one game lets you play YOU and the other has you play THE CHARACTER. pretty good video none the less, a friend and i had a discussion about this a couple of years ago too and just started games like diablo "stat-grinder", zelda/witcher style games "character rpg", jrpgs "group rpgs" and sandbox-rpgs "sandbox rpg". before these names it was fairly annoying to describe a game to each other because the term rpg just doesnt mean anything anymore.
RPGs are just adventure games with the additional variables of branching paths, rivaling factions, classes, and racial/cultural biases that restrict what you can and can’t do, which encourages multiple playthroughs. If you can do pretty much everything on a single game with little restriction, then it’s not an RPG. Skyrim is one of these faux-RPGs. The player should should require a minimum total magic level to join the mages college or be outright rejected from joining the thieves guild if failing the initiation. The closest we get to role-playing are side quest with a last minuet kill (character) for (different reward) formula. No real impact on the world outside of the stupidly linear story-driven faction quests. Mount & Blade, for example, is the gold standard for what an RPG should be. The world is a sandbox with plenty to do. There are multiple factions fighting each other in real time who can reshape borders like in Risk regardless of your input. Sidequests have a failure option which damages your reputation with that faction. Your stats actually have an effect on your ability to read, perform medical care, build siege machines, bow accuracy, athletics & movement in heavy gear, being attractive to possible spouses, etc. Party members will actually leave you or start a mutiny if you’re performing actions that go against their moral code. The player has the options play whatever kind of character they want including bounty hunter, usurper, slave trader, tax collector, arena champion, village raider, and many more.
Choices *and consequences* are the biggest factor in what makes a game an RPG. _How good_ of an RPG it is depends on how many choices and consequences there are. Skyrim would be more of an RPG if you wanted to get into the mage's college but they deny you entry since you didn't meet the relatively high magic skills requirements. You *chose* to specc into other skills, and you suffer the *consequences* of not having access to certain locations. Of course this is just a minor example. Mount and Blade as you said does this everytime and with much more severe consequences.
Skyrim's intro is purposefully very vague. All that is said is that you were trying to cross the border into Skyrim and "walked into that (Imperial) ambush".
It is also a horrible way to start a game. There is to much jargon, and people just filter jargon. I know what they tried to do, but they did drop the ball in presenting what kind of game Skyrim was.
@@Cloud_Seeker Oh yeah, I agree. Skyrim's intro is pretty poorly designed. I think it's a terrible idea to start the player off without any control for so long. Could have trimmed that down a lot. Many different ways the concept could have been executed better. I mean, why not give the player full control as soon as they step off the cart? If you wonder too far the guards attack you and when Alduin attacks, all the fire raining down burns off your cuffs. From there, just let the player escape Helgen in an open sand box. They might run to the Keep or hop over a wall or bust through the gates... give the player freedom.
I'm still baffled just how vague the term "RPG" is. Especially when some of the games I love are considered RPG. But the arguments here make sense against that. Edit: I forgot about the JRPG rabbit hole. That's also involved in this whole argument.
@@noahfessenden6478 in a videogame gameplay is everything, so early RPG's established combat similar to tabletop Dungeons and Dragons, instead of rolling a dice, you just chose from a menu, it was turn based. Over time, we saw RPG's that were still basically turn based, but had timers or comedown periods, I would still classify them as RPG's. But any videogame where one can spam attacks in real time with the press of a button, I would disqualify from being an actual RPG.
@@hepwo91222 But there's still more to gameplay than just the combat. There's the stuff around the combat. The interaction, the exploration, the questing, the experience points, etc. That's a part of a typical RPG whether or not it follows the DnD format.
@@noahfessenden6478 videogames, the interactive experience when classifying a game into a genre, it's a good rule of thumb to do it through gameplay. I wouldn't call a racing game a RPG bc I could level up/upgrade my car. RPG is really the most misused and overused genre. Basically if it's not turn based or timed combat, it's not a RPG.
I really don't understand "wacky" approach to role playing games. Like I get it that in real d&d you can roll high luck challenge and loot atomic bomb and your game master can let you drop it on hoover dam. But games are not a fucking d&d. Developers can be inspired by their experience of playing d&d but it's impossible to create game that will react to every stupid thing that will come to players mind. If you want to play a sociopath murderer who kills every single person he meets play hotline miami. For me true role playing games are about complex branching narratives where player is given enough freedom withing plot without ultimately braking it. True role-playing games let you explore psychological, political and sociological themes. Disco Elysium for example is not really about "wacky" shit that main character does when he fails roll, its about post revolutionary country where you encounter different ideologies, struggle with your human nature etc. Fun roll fails are more like a gimmick and just enjoyable little thing but not the ultimate reason for playing this game.
In some cases by your argument DnD isnt an rpg depending on how railroaded you are. Sure you can get to decide the small details and how you approach the story, but in the end you the player may not influence the overall story at all. Build and approach variety is more important. In which case kingdom hearts at least lets you use different startegies if you want (more magic or more block or more etc.) While with call of duty... the build is essentially the same every time and the linearity gets rid of a lot of wiggleroom for approaches. It's all really semantics
If you're talking about table top, then D&D modules were since the earliest ones designed with as much player freedom as possible. If you're not taking advantage of that and choose to be railroaded, then that's your problem, but where's the fun in that? Doesn't make D&D as a whole less of an RPG. That's why the best D&D games try to recreate that experience. Defining rpgs by builds doesn't make sense since that's not role-playing is
So basically, even if there's no role-playing, if you can build or choose your character's stats, gear, abilities, and levels, or if your actions or choices have an effect on story or progression, it's typically referred to as an RPG. JRPG means Japanese RPG. It doesn't have to be from Japan, it just has to be a style of RPG that's based on the old Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior system. It can be turn-based, have stats and gear that goes into gear slots, or have some other major game design that makes it feel especially Japanese. Kingdom Hearts would not count as a JRPG, despite being Japan-level weird, having a sometimes anime style, and sharing a sub-universe with Final Fantasy. Kingdom Hearts would be an American ARPG, or Action RPG. It could be called Western, but since Disney is associated with USA and Western often refers to Cowboys and the Wild West Pioneer theme specifically, let's avoid that. That said, I've thought about this myself. The other day I saw someone call things like Mass Effect, Oblivion, and Fallout JRPGs and I started to wonder if the genre RPG even meant what it used to anymore and whether we needed to re-categorize genres using a tags system instead of a label system. As someone who hates ARPGs, loves turn-based JRPGs in the FF style (Both RPG), doesn't like games like R-Type, but loves Megaman clones (Both sometimes referred to as Side-Scrolling Shooters or Shoot-Em-Ups) (And Megaman also called a Side-Scrolling Platformer, which doesn't really help much since that's like half of all games ever), I think a tags system would indeed be better.
After watching this video I have a few problems. One is this about a RPG is about playing a role. Meaning. Playing as a thief or knight. This is not what an RPG is about. You are supposed to play a character. One made by someone else, or one made by you. Picking a role is not what roleplay is about.
Language is complex, and the definition of a word is fluid, most people use RPG to define a numbers based game, so thats the definition of it, just because of its roots doesn't mean the current definition of it is any less valid. Yes, you can try to change that definition, but you can't invalidate a word just because you don't agree with its current definition. Also, games can be in multiple genres.
@@CrisisRadio So you don't consider slang words part of language? Also, can you give me an example of your "descriptive words reman the same" point? I'm not quite understanding how it holds up.
I feel you can argue for fire emblem as an RPG kinda like mount and blade but with some railroad elements but I agree it probably isn't a pure RPG experience
I've come to the conclusion that trying to get people to call something like jRPGs something else that doesn't have the phrase "Role Playing" in it would be trying to get people to call American Football something else because you don't primarily use your feet to play them. It's just so ingrained into our vocabulary that trying to rename them to be more technically correct is just not practical.
What if they made a game that was SO choice driven that you could literally go the WHOLE game is "just a normal guy" who doesbt even slightly get caught up in the main story?
@@Commandant_Aeon Nah. That person is no longer part of the story. If you make such a character in my D&D group I will have you make a new character. The character you made at first is no longer a play character that is part of the story. It is an NPC that hangs around in the background.
@@Cloud_Seeker except we are not speaking about a TTRPG, but a singleplayer game where this type of freedom would be awesome as it would imply a huge progress in the informatic domain.
@@Commandant_Aeon It doesn't matter if it is a SP videogame or a TTRPG. If you make a character that is more interested in how to survive day by day then doing the story the game has to offer. Go and make a new character. That person is not the focus of the story and will never be the focus of the story. His struggles are just important for him. He is just a NPC that go around and do their daily chores. The focus of the story is the main characters that take part in the story being told. There is actually a game like that, or something like it at least. Its called Kingdom Come Deliverance. You can just be a peasent forever. But if you want to actually go somewhere in the game, you have to take part in the main quest. If you make a character that fail to take part in the main quest, it is game over. That can happen in Kingdom Come Deliverance.
I have a different experience with RPG. Because I came to learn the term RP (role-play) from theater and not from DnD/ other tabletop games so when I first found out about the term RPG as a game genre I connected it with you playing a character in a story. And I know that a theater performance is called a play in English, but in my language, if you translate directly it translates to role-play. So I think that it has had this problem since the dawn of the term because if you take the literal meaning of the words the term is made up of it only mean you are playing a role in a game and so it encompasses almost every game. And it does not shock me that japan had a different interpretation of the phrase than some of the western world.
Im not sure unkillable npc is necessarily a bad thing, in a dnd campaign killing random npcs with no character motivation is considered bad roleplaying and is pretty discouraged by the players and dm alike. Freedom of choice is important and character actions should drive thw plot but total freedom does not always make sense in a roleplaying game.
Theres definitely a difference between open world rpg's like new Vegas and narrative rpg's like the mass effect trilogy. Skyrim seems to try and be both and doesnt excell in either
good video I agree 100% that's been very annoying to me that's why I like MMORPGs a lot it's because the R is actually represented to a very okay degree
That being? I would dare to say player expression but a lot of RPG element games have better player expression than actual RPG's through the mechanics of the game
I think there is really only one major criteria that should define a role playing game, and that is player agency regarding the story. If the player can change the outcome of the major outcomes of the story, then it’s a role playing game. Otherwise it is not. I don’t think character creation defines a role playing game. I think it’s perfectly fine to have a defined starting point, but leave the rest up to you. A good example of a game that has a defined starting point but good player agency over the story is The Witcher series.
I feel like you're really understating the value of mechanical choices to "role playing." Old school RPGs used mechanics to define specific kinds of characters, because "rogue" or "fighter" was generally the baseline of the characters the game was designed to support. If fighting is the main way you interact with the game/world (which it generally is) then it's still one of the biggest decisions a player CAN make about who their avatar is. "I'm a strong warrior" vs. "I'm a clever mage." Seems like quite the difference to me. I mean, you even bring up examples like pokemon, where you can choose to play a particular character if you want to. Or not. Most people choose to just do whatever they, personally, want, without any thought to the character their playing as. But isn't that also a role? Is "me, but in this world" not a character I could conceivably create and play? You also use both Kingdom Hearts and Skyrim as examples, yet but them on opposite sides of this dichotomy. I mean sure, you can choose where you go in Skyrim along the main quest, to a certain extent. And you can choose how many activities you want to perform while you're doing the min quest, and which ones. But couldn't you say the same about Kingdom Hearts? You can choose the order you go to different worlds, to a certain extent, and you can choose to do various minor, irrelevant things along the way. At what point does Skyrim become an RPG, exactly? Turns out "role playing" is an entirely vague concept that can be applied to any game at the player's discretion. You acknowledge this, of course, which only makes this insistence that everyone else is using the term wrong even more confusing. If "role playing" is an incredibly broad concept that can be applied to almost any game, then what separates the games *you* consider to be RPGs from anything else? Story acknowledgement? Then how many choices do you have to be able to make before it qualifies? Character customization? Then wouldn't most multiplayer games, like Splatoon, also qualify? Also that big diatribe about how vague the term RPG is just reminded me of the exact same arguments against the term "moba." People are using a very consistent definition of the term with various subcategories which are, in turn, well defined and easy to understand. Feel free to toss your own definitions into the ring if you don't like ours, but character driven RPGs represent only a single fraction of what other people are actually talking about when they say "RPG." And maybe suggest another name for all the other games people call RPGs so we can continue having conversations about those games. I'm aware this is a... *late* reply, but it's one I felt the need to make.
Mw2 has an RPG (rocket propelled grenade) but it isn't an rpg
Before I knew what rpg stood for and saw an rpg in cod and found out it meant rocket propelled grendade. My confusion for what an rpg was hit max
@@grantgarbour rpg actually stands for Ruchnoy Protivotankoviy Granatomyot
@@sisyphus7931 Is this German or gibrish 😅
@@blackcatpirates8134 Russian so like German viewed through a mirror
Missed opportunity
We should categorize Fire Emblem as TACTICAL ANIME CHESS
If Fire Emblem is anime, then so is something like Touhou.
Which it is, just bear with me.
I'd say rock, paper, siccors chess.
@@theinvisibleskulk4563 well there's a literal fire emblem anime from the 90s.
Well FE is a Tactical War Game, like Advance Wars for example
Nah, when it comes to the later titles especially, it's Tactical anime romance chess
"Is mayonnaise a RPG?"
"No Patrick, mayonnaise isn't an RPG"
@@juanrodriguez9971
*Puts hand up*
@@Sgt-Wolf "Horseradish is not an RPG either"
One second, going to rpg maker. Gonna make mayonnaise an RPG
@@93003ayo
Yes do that.
I don't feel the need to replay Skyrim, but New Vegas has a lot to offer even if you choose the same decisions, because it gives you more options for build, to become the person your character acts as and aspires to be, both in gameplay and dialogue
16:00 his first sin was playing through the main quest of a elder scrolls game
Lmaooo, Morrowind's isn't that bad compared to Skyrim's for instance but the level of tedium in those main quests is excessive
@@velcro4836 oblivion is pretty decent
Oblivion has pretty good quest
Fallout New Vegas is such an amazing game. Subsequently, it’s set my expectations crazy high. To this day I haven't found a single RPG that I have enjoyed as much as New Vegas.
Divinity original sin 2?
Ditto, New Vegas was really great in spite of it's shit engine and some almost too ugly visuals aside.
morrowind
Really nice to hear some love for Pokemon Colosseum's soundtrack at minute 6.
Jumped right into the comments when I noticed the music.
ua-cam.com/video/FgNXUSySZ7E/v-deo.html
Nintendo desperately needs to revisit this series.
> sure, dumb the franchise down with Go, Let's Go, and S&S, but at least provide something more through spinoffs.
This is the first time I’ve heard that music since I finished that game at release, I guess it’s a compliment I could tell it was from Colosseum in just a few seconds.
Pyrite town!
RPG is my favorite genre of games, but I can't even use the tag to search for RPGs when I browse, because my search results are saturated with games that are decidedly not RPGs.
When I first started this video I wasnt really interested in the topic, but then all of a sudden the video is ending good job on editing and the voice-over, I loved the comedy spread throughout especially at the end with subbing keep it up man
The thesis of this video uses a really modern understanding of "role playing" that's like, 20 years old tops. In the olden times, rpgs were just tabletop war games where you only controlled your commander instead of an entire force. So saying "you have to be able to rp in an rpg" is a very new idea and runs almost counter to what the rpgs of old were: turn based tactics games. Fire Emblem is actually incredibly close to an old-school rpg.
Definitely. I would also argue that it is almost impossible to "role-play" in RPGs, with decisions being closer to flipping to a certain page in a CYOA book. To me, a rough definition for an RPG is a game where your power is determined by the build of a character.
Modern Fire Emblem actually has less choice impact than older games. Characters dying in older games can directly impact support dialogue or even bar you from recruiting certain characters down the line
Fuk99999 i can’t agree with that. Despite the fact that you have mentioned in 3H just al the beginig you have to make a decicion wich influences a lot the game it self. A part from that you can personalize your team a lot, you can decide wich sutdents you want to fight with. Moreover the first FE games doesn’t allows you to change class as 3H does, now you can do basically what ever you want
@@arnaul_de_lapras5853 allowing you to retroactively change your decisions is a very Un-RPG mechanic. An RPG always makes you deal with the consequences of your choices.
@@robertharris6092 well maybe on occidental RPG but not on JRPG and pokemon-like games
Actually no, if a unit die in your FE run, then nothing more happens, he just die and you can't use him anymore, and when you finish the game, the game spits you to the face your idiocy by telling you when he died.
So you are pretty wrong.
@@arnaul_de_lapras5853 but JRPG arnt actual RPGs.
Great video exploring your definition. I think some of the difficulty in defining RPG or any modern genre comes from the issue of them typically involving multiple mechanics which may or may not be present to a greater or lesser extent in any particular game. I'd go for a more flexible definition that isn't a strict binary of RPG/not, but recognises some games have more RPG elements than others, and that games that have a higher number of these elements and utilise them to a greater effect are more accurately described as RPGs.
Good point. Also calling Kingdom Hearts an action-adventure game with RPG style gameplay mechanics might be accurate, but too long. And calling it just an action-adventure game doesn't describe the game well.
I'd go with a system that isn't really super descriptive, but I think is a step to the right direction:
The genre of RPG is divided into the genres of _Unfixed story role-playing game_ and _Fixed story role-playing game._ (URPG and FRPG) Kingdom Hearts would be a _fixed story action role-playing game,_ FARPG. Fallout 4 and Skyrim would be URPGs. After thinking about it, surprisingly I'd say with pretty much all RPGs it's pretty easy to figure out which genre it fits in.
That's not too bad, right?
@@metawarp7446 calling Kingdom Hearts a action adventure game kinda does describe it well as there is action and adventure though that is a catch all term then it turns into "What is a action adventure?" other than "What is a RPG?"
This is kind of pedantic in the sense that it's prioritizing the literal reading of the term over its actual, real-life usage. Basically prescriptivism over descriptivism. It's like criticizing roguelikes for not being visually similar to Rogue, or metroidvanias for being neither Metroid nor Castlevania. RPG, among other usages, is the name of a certain genre of video games, and whether or not you do what would be considered in a strict sense "role-playing" is not exactly relevant/necessary and hasn't been since the days of the NES, if not earlier. The genre is instead characterized typically by gameplay-related or mechanical similarities rather than the player's ability to affect the main character and/or the plot. Whether that genre should be called RPG or not is actually a separate discussion, but that's the name it has had for several decades so good luck arguing against it now. The word metroidvania hasn't been showing any signs of going away either, and it's even less accurate.
Splitting the term into JRPG and WRPG does help separate two different kinds of RPG mechanics, but in reality that's not really very helpful since it relies not only on stereotypical expectations of how Japanese vs Western RPGs operate, but even if an American company were to make a Final Fantasy clone, you'd get people saying how it's not really a JRPG because it's not technically from Japan and it's not a WRPG either because it doesn't fit under the expected mechanics of one.
well said completely agree. How the term is used is what defines the term great. the guy in the video likes the traditional term that has not been in use for like 40 years, terms change and that's why it is not worth the effort to use the older term RPG instead the newer term RPG.
@@Tethloach1 Okay, but whats the point in having a term that doesn't mean anything. If it evolves from a term that at one point had a defined meaning, and has now devolved into "you have some degree of character customization", whats the point in the term even being used anymore?
@@Wodferd Words have no intrinsic meaning, and the usages of words has always evolved and everyone knows this, because if you ever tried to read Shakespeare you know that to understand what's being said, you actually need to know how the words were used at that time. I'll reiterate, words have no intrinsic meanings, only usages.
@@wibblemu9 words retain the meaning intended by the person who said them, they have meaning but not perceived meaning, intended meaning. This is why SJWs struggle with language - they ignore intended meaning for perceived meaning.
He does admit that the discussion is more opinion based than a descriptive dissection of various RPGs that have existed to this point. You can certainly expand on the meaning of "role" in role-playing game. You can think of CoD games as RPG because you are playing in the role of a soldier. It's a linear experience and you can't do much to change the outcome of the game. One could think of Saints Row as RPG because you are playing in the role of a psychopathic gang leader and it's a sandbox game where you can do whatever you want. You are usually presented with a binary choice when there is the option to choose but then again I don't feel that those decisions are all that impactful. Mount & Blade can certainly be regarded as RPG because not only does it let you create your character, not only is it a sandbox experience, it also lets you make lasting decisions that will affect your game in the long run. What this video demonstrates is that some titles have stronger claim to the title rather than diminish the RPGs that don't. I find myself thinking that a game is RPG as soon as I see numbers, a number of different mechanics one can toy around with in the game such as crafting, combat, dialogue to name a few, equipping gear, inventory management and so on.
So what you're describing sounds very much like a western RPG.
wRPGs tend to play a little more like D&D in that you're a "you" character and you play through your own experience within the setting.
Contrast with jRPGs which are often more narrowly focused and have you inhabiting an existing character. How much this character you control might be their own person varies, but you will generally be allowed to perform actions as you see fit in their shoes while the game justifies this around you. Ideally these decisions you make as these characters do affect things and even divert you to a different story path, but as jRGPs are more narrowly focused, they will usually have fewer significant story branches and most of the "bad" ones will just end- typically long before the true/most ideal ending.
I understand that JRPGs are a different genre entirely than their Western counterparts, but I think it's not quite right to dismiss claims that some aren't RPGs. There are absolutely JRPGs that don't have any role-playing at all, where your actions aren't influential on the world at all (MOTHER comes to mind here). I think it's fair to question if calling those games "RPGs" is proper, because they miss some of the essentials of the genre. That might mean that we'll redefine JRPG or create a new category when there are games historians, but until then, it's a fair discussion
@@andrewvalentine5347 My guess as to why they're called role-playing games when you don't get to role-play yourself like we seem to expect in the west is that...well with traditional jRPGs, what else do you call them? They don't offer any other systems that would merit a different genre title. As Fudj said, you play as a character and this perform their role in any game, so bareft of any other defining aspect to name the genre for, this became Role Playing Game.
@@fisherdotogg My understanding of the history of the JRPG is that they were originally explicitly modeled on their Western counterparts in the late 80s and stayed decently similar until the mid-90s. The problem as I see it is that they've developed into something different than they were that eschews most of the actual role-playing. It could be that JRPG describes a specific enough genre that is distinct from Western-style RPGs to the point where the name being a relic doesn't matter (Dark Souls seems to suggest this since it's a Japanese RPG that never gets called a JRPG), in which case this isn't a super important discussion
@@andrewvalentine5347 Yeah, they're just different genres now that diverged from a common point in history. As far as I could glean from the video, it felt like Fudj acknowledged that jRPGs existed but A) could not define them, B) did not address them, and C) failed to recognise or even bring up the concept of a wRPG which was precisely what he argued an RPG was supposed to be.
Honestly, both are valid genres, he just seems confused by the similar names despite seeming to be sooooort of aware of a distinction.
Weeb
It's funny how RPG has no relationship to the style of combat. We now add that the style of combat and slap RPG on it because of the progression like fire emblem is a SRPG (strategic)
His definition captures the ideas of Western RPGs perfectly. Your playing a character you create to insert into the world.
While Japanese RPGs your 'helping' a character progress through their own stories.
Rpg=choices
Choices can be in the gameplay as well as the dialog options.
@@Arismory That would make Animal Crossing, Call of Duty, and countless visual novels RPGs.
@@knightshade2654 i mean isn't any simulation game a rpg? you make a character and do whatever you feel like when it comes to stuff like animal crossing or minecraft. Though Visual novels are not games in the first place they are just interactive books
@@knightshade2654 animal crossing is a sim with not a lot of story, call of duty is a fps and visual novels aren’t even games
It’s almost like taxonomy is a complex art of categorization that at its core is subjective and arbitrary. RPG is like the “family” or even “order” levels of classification, with 2-3 subcategories following, leading to a wide variety of games that can still be considered RPG’s - from the linear, turn-based JRPGs to the open-world sandboxes of Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and the Witcher.
> Skyrim has a story it's want to tell you, so you can't kill these characters that are largely irrelevant to that story
Skyrim didn't even have a good story in the first place lol
Skyrim’s story was good
@@Robertedwinhouse38 Haha! I guess so.
If you have really low standards.
@@Robertedwinhouse38 What other games have you played? Please, even hardcore skyrim players agree the story is dreadful
Isucc Long there’s a difference between hardcore Skyrim players and elder scrolls enthusiasts. I am an elder scrolls enthusiast and thought it was nearly perfect. And a great setup for the next title.
@@jumongmoves6508 Blabla bla"generic obsidian shill screeching"
Zelda and Pokemon are somewhat strange examples for RPGs, specifically with recent games: they make you follow the story, your role is already set and the world around you is very distinct in what you can and can’t do, but they give you a lot of options for customization and recent games have given you a ton more dialogue options will all kinds of NPCs rather than just “yes” or “no”.
I think dismissing JRPGs is a major flaw with this video. You're focusing way too much on the classic western RPG, thus games like Pokémon and Kingdom Hearts do not fit your definition. They are RPGs, just not the kind of RPG you are familiar with.
JRPGs are the crux of this issue, as the first few *big* Japanese RPGs (Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Megami Tensei, etc.) were loosely inspired by western RPGs, but evolved into a different thing entirely, which is where Pokémon, Kingdom Hearts and other games draw from.
They are no longer drawing from the western RPG, they are drawing from the trendsetters of the late 80s. But they are still RPGs because those older games they are based on are considered RPGs as well.
Skyrim gets its replayability from its many many many mods that can fix any problem you may have with the game
Ah yes Skyrim the Glock of Video games
I consider an rpg to be quite specific, a game where the roleplaying is a primary focus, specifically involving crpgs or games like the witcher. Similarly the only jrpgs i consider actual rpgs are the trails games and the megami tensei games because they have that role playing and choice emphasis.
Pokèmon is a different jaunra centrered around catching monsters, tho I forgot what it's called like
Edit: ok actually it's a subjaunra of RPG
Hey man, I've been binging your videos. Great content!
Now that I've complimented you, I'm gonna be an arse and point out you say 'less' a lot when you mean to say 'fewer'
Ta bruh!
I was trying to think of other examples where the strict features of the genre are not how people popularly categorize the game and came up with Banjo-Kazooie vs. Ocarina of Time, which are of course quite different games, but they share core 3D movement, combat, and general interactivity with the world and characters, and there's a case to be made that they are more similar to each other than Banjo-Kazooie to Crash Bandicoot or Ocarina to, say, GTA3.
Probably unfair comparisons. I dunno. I feel like what people actually mean when they talk about genre isn't mechanics, but the game "lineage"-the answer to the question, "which 80s game is this game's ancestor?" Banjo-Kazooie's ancestor is Super Mario Bros., OoT's is Zelda 1. In that vein, so-called JRPGs trace to Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, whereas so-called Western RPGs trace to games like Ultima and Wizardry, and both genres are ultimately based on D&D and other Tabletop RPGs, which is where they got their name. But just as with a family, two grandchildren might look and act differently from each other, and two unrelated people might be very similar.
The zelda serie is more of an adventure than an rpg. Not an adventure game in the sense of the old point and click adventure. Zelda is its own genre in itself.
In Tetris you play the role of the wall, growing as its being built
The main reason I dislike how RPG is used nowadays is because any time I hear the term RPG I have no idea what I'm getting into. Am I getting into a Witcher 3, Fallout 76, New Vegas, or Kingdom Hearts, just hearing RPG doesn't actually tell me anything useful.
I feel the same way about the term MMO, I used to know what kind of game I was getting into if it was listed as an MMO, now if I go look up MMOs I'll find things like Destiny, Smite, and GTA Online. Call of Duty could probably be an MMO, I've found other team based shooters categorized as MMOs.
I remember that the term RPG was so vague and misrepresents the games that fit under it so much that I never played pokemon for years as I thought that it was like a role play game where you pretended to be a pokemon or pokemon trainer like the five year olds on roblox' adopt me
These discussions are really interesting, your videos really do deserve much more views.
Thanks for introducing me to pro tag
a lot of modern "RPG"s seem more like video game fantasy novels, honestly.
Sure, there might be character creation, but isn't that the same as imagining how the main character looks in a novel?
For both, the focus is on the pre-set story.
The only real difference is that you can do video-game-y things like fighting and trading items. Remove that and those games literally become visual novels, which then explains why JRPGs work so well.
Crossing video game novels with visual novels can pretty much just be expected to work perfectly well.
So yeah, I propose we create the genre of VGN (video game novels) and relocate about 80% of what we currently call "RPG" to that.
This comment ia stupid in retrospective
Would ACNH be an rpg by this logic?
Both Skyrim and New Vegas have many side storyline threads, but the main difference is Skyrim let’s you Roleplay by choosing WHICH storylines you participate in, and NV lets you Roleplay HOW you participate in EVERY storyline.
I always wondered why adventure games disappeared, but when you realize that the genre has been eaten up by the RPG mantle it all makes sense
ha, that's interesting. i only just now noticed this
@@stayskeptic3923 yeah i was thinking the same thing. to me adventure games stopped meaning the interactive fiction type pretty quickly(think secret of monkey island) i just saw those as puzzle type games. when i was a kid at some point i definetly saw games that are closer to zelda types or even metroidvanias adventure games and the former monkey island ones were completely erased from my memory. it feels soemwhat surreal thinking about it now, maybe i'm just nostalgic.
I still call them adventure games. So Breath of the Wild, Witcher 3, Skyrim, open world adventure. New Vegas, Mass effect, First Person Shooter Adventure. Castlevania Symphony of the Night, Super Metroid, sidescrolling adventure. When they call everything a RPG, the genre is no longer descriptive of anything.
@@hepwo91222 ????? Those are not adventure games
@@Jrdotan they are adventure games. Xenoblade, Octopath Traveler, Lost Odyssey are RPG's for example. Either turn based or timed combat just like tabletop games where RPG's were invented.
Good video. I think Fallout and Fallout 2 demonstrated how you can tell a mainline quest story with only one ending (Master's ending in F1 is more of a game over) and still give your player's freedom in how they get there. It's not quite as open-ended as F:NV (what if I want to play a character that really believes in The Unity/The Enclave?), but at least it doesn't restrict killing certain characters because they're "too important" like in Bethesda RPGs.
In Skyrim's main questline, a 'bad guy' is just a rude prick who still does basically all the same things as a 'good guy' but is unpleasant to people along the way
Weird... Fallout 4 is not normally considered a real rpg, but under this constraints, fallout 4 is actually a full rpg, even if not a good one
Bethesda doesn't let you play as a bad guy any more. You can be a good guy, or an asshole who does the right thing.
At some point they decided that you just... can't do too many bad things. Which then makes things like the Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim so nonsensical. You always do the right thing regardless of if you like it... but also kill the emperor and destabilise the region?
I would consider Earthbound to be an rpg, even though you have a party of 4, it all leads to the same ending no matter if you change the names of your characters. It all leads to the same end
Especially when buzz buzz comes and you have a choice on if you hear a bee, it still leads to the same objective
I have spent *countless* hours trying to figure out what an RPG is...Oh my god!Thank you, Fudj!
Does anyone else think there should be a list, like "An RPG must have at least 3 out of 5 of the following:
1. Modifiable skills 2. Alternate endings 3..." etc.,
I don't know why I find this so necessary...(??)
There are a lot of RPG's that don't have multiple endings you know, heck some don't even have endings at all you the player decides when it ends Story of Seasons: Friends of Mineral Town is a example of that.
Though it does bring a question of how much RPG elements makes a game a RPG. Though Turn based RPG's and Action RPG's are distinctly both RPG's just one is turn based and one is real time. And only a idiot would say that only Turn Based are RPG's while others are games with RPG Elements but they are disqualified from even being a RPG simply because they are not turn based
I think some familiarity with tabletop RPGs is actually pretty necessary to figuring out this problem, subjective as it is. As someone who's played a bit of not only D&D but some more contemporary systems, the big distinguishing feature of RPGs from games in general (not just videogames) is systemized collaborative storytelling and choice, OVER skill and strategy- often (but not always) employing elements of chance. It's still ultimately a game rather than like, a no holds barred improv acting/writing session because it's systemized, and things like combat or social dice rolls introduce a certain amount of conflict and strategy which impact events, but broadly the emphasis is still moreso on the broad choices and story. Some tabletop games like World of Darkness (urban fantasy setting) go so far as to refer to the "game master" (the person who designs and runs the session as opposed to the players) as "the storyteller" for this reason. There are systems of varying complexity with all sorts of stats and settings, but the point is that the players are NOT just winning challenges. In fact for decades players often have derided certain other players as "munchkins" for playing too competitively, making beefy combat characters with no personality solely to kill monsters and gain EXP in the most boring game-breaking way possible (the saddest and most pointless thing a player can do, next to lying about dice rolls.) Keeping all of this in mind, while I think RPG is a flimsy and subjective (and often misleading) term, it is grossly overused. Evaluating game's basic principles like whether they prioritize choice over skill as a whole make the term relevant and useful as more and more games employ certain superficial elements like stats and character creation.
Thanks for bugging out UA-cam and only playing the audio to a black screen.
This video does a good job of defining an RPG based on its literal meaning but I can't help but feel that it just... doesn't matter? Like, ok some games we call RPGs don't fit a literal definition of a role-playing game but so what? If say refer to something like an RPG with the intent to communicate that it has a story and the typical stats and magic and what have you and that's how most other people understand what the phrase RPG then why does an actual literal definition of role-playing game matter? I don't mean to be reductive, it's an interesting video, I guess I just don't understand the 'why'.
Well, why discuss anything, right? I just think it's a fun and interesting topic! It doesn't have to matter or even change anything imo, sometimes it's just fun to exchange ideas and opinions
@@NocturnalFudj Yeah, it is an interesting topic for sure, like I said in my comment, I didn't want to come across as reductive, I suppose I just got the impression that video was building to reason or purpose and then it just ended which kinda caught me off guard.
@@mrforgetable1 the reason is simple Humans like putting two and two together giving it a label and making it organized in a neat little box
...maybe the "genre" of games that most people call "RPG" is really "management"? Or perhaps tactical/strategy? I mean, yeah, so then there are the games people call tactical or strategy RPGs, but from what limited experience I've had with alleged "RPG" games, they seem to be defined by a battle system that plays like a collectible card game, a custom chess game or some kind of weird Frankenstein-ish team sports simulator (and besides "experience" essentially progressing the story by soft-locking everything, that seems to be what makes the "stats and numbers and levels" relevant).
Honestly, a big chunk of the gaming name conventions seems to consist of superficially comparing games to things gamers don't really understand (I mean, I'm not saying gamers ain't woke, but...)
Take "First Person Shooter", for example. I probably don't have to explain that the name is borrowed from literary analysis, or that gamers think it should be called thus because the player sees through the playable character's eyes; however, their failure to define what would qualify as a "second person" game is truly ironic.
You see, they don't actually know what "first person" means; they think it's referring to the perspective of the reader when it's actually that of the narrator.
"Third person" means that person telling the story is disconnected from it altogether; they don't appear as a character nor directly affect the story nor are they directly affected by the story. If you wanna be "that guy", the narrator might be a background character or live in the same world after the fact or whatever, but the point is that the narrator is on the outside looking in; third person narrators say "they".
As far as games are concerned, you mostly see this in "god games", games like the Sims where the gameplay/core mechanics, or the "game master" as it were, the game's equivalent of a narrator, operates at a level above that at which the "NPCs", and any possible stories, operate.
But what about all those games where you're controlling characters like r/c cars? Aren't those "third person" games? That's what gamers have been calling them, but ironically they're actually "first person" games. Confused? Then I'll explain.
"First person" perspective describes when a character in a story is also the person telling the story; they're essentially eye witnesses recounting events. This often means they're cast as the protagonist of the story, but there are instances of secondary characters giving second-hand accounts of someone else's story; point is, first person narrators say "I".
While not exactly literary, a good example of a "first person" story is Steven Universe. Everything's told from Steven's "perspective"; he's always present and nothing is revealed to the audience that isn't also revealed to Steven. So in a game, this would mean that the "game master" is the playable character; that character _is_ the game. In something like Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic _is_ the game and thus it is a "first person" game.
So then what about the alleged "First Person Shooters"? See, that's the thing; _those_ are the "second person" games that gamers have had so much trouble pinning down. What you have to understand is that second person narrators say "you"; they get the reader involved in the story and thus the reader becomes a character, again as the protagonist in most cases.
In a game, this means that the screen ain't the fourth wall; it's your eyes. You're not controlling Master Chief; you _are_ Master Chief. _You_ are in the game. Everything relates to _you_. Not "I"; "you". Games that shine the spotlight squarely upon the gamer are second person games.
Nope! Now that we have VR it's become obvious that you control master chief like a tank or robot, and you are not ever master chief! If you were correct VR would be overflowing with superior FPS games
@@joeygreathouse3029 ... don't you mean SPS? You're missing the point; even if you were controlling a literal tank the game would still be second person. Hell, even in something like Night Trap where the premise sets a screen squarely between you and the action, you're still in the limelight. By your logic, you aren't the "stranger" in the Myst games either because you're just changing slides.
@@Archestereo no
I don't really get what you're trying to say. The point of calling a game a first person shooter, third person shooter, or 'second person shooter' all has to do with perspective. The same goes for first/second/third person in literary analysis. For literary analysis, first person has the narrator be the main character, second person has the narrator be a side character, and third person has the narrator be separated from the characters. Replace narrator with camera and you literally get the definition of first/second/third person games.
@@TheDevelo Naw, see, you're forgetting that the narrator is relaying the story to the audience; the narrator's perspective and ours ain't the same.
When it's the "main character", they relay it to us like an eye witness account; thus our perspective is watching the narrator act out the story on stage.
When they're completely removed, it's like they're giving color commentary to something equally alien to everyone.
When they're the side character, guess who the "main character" is?
The person they're addressing; you.
The story they're telling is seen from _your_ perspective, thus the story that _you're_ in is a second person _narrative_ where the _narrator_ is a second party rather than first or third party.
It isn't about you, it's about the narrator; that's what's tripping so many people up.
This is a discussion topic I've always pondered after having grown up with jrpgs like pokemon then being introduced to games like fallouts 1 and 2, and I feel like I could go through the process of distinguishing genres but I honestly feel like it'd be a waste of effort on my part. Who are we gonna convince we're right other than ourselves, and what sort of effect would making the exception the rule really have in the end? Marketing and culture have basically won what constitutes an rpg, as is the case for adventure games and more.
Great takes, fully agree with you here. I do wish you had brought up games like Baldur's Gate, Fallout 1 & 2, or Divinity, these are great examples of RPGs and I think they coincide with your definitions. They're often called CRPGs, and I think how closely newer "RPGs" are to them the closer they are to being genuine RPGs. I think New Vegas is a perfect example, it's closer to feeling like Fallout 1&2 than anything Bethesda has ever developed. Staying true to these roots is what defines a true RPG to me.
Maybe we should look at games like Skyrim or Fallout 3 as a different subgenre of RPG. Maybe they should be called "Light RPGs" or something - they're light on critical RPG elements but clearly take inspiration from them.
In Skyrim, I'm pretty sure you got caught trying to cross the border.
As for the topic at hand, I always say the RPG genre is more of a spectrum but you know them when you see them. That said, many concepts and mechanics that originated in RPG's have been hijacked by other genres, which has only muddied the RPG genre further.
It's quite simple, needs gameplay similar to old school tabletop games like Dungeons&Dragons with turn based or timed combat, not real time combat. Any real time combat is disqualified from being a true RPG and might just be an adventure or action game with RPG elements.
@@hepwo91222 By that logic, the Witcher series isn't an RPG
@@Saber0003 it's not, it's an open world adventure game. It has RPG elements, but it's combat is real time, so by my own criteria, not a true RPG.
@@hepwo91222 Your criteria is bad and you should feel bad.
@@Saber0003 why? I am basing off of where RPG's originated from, tabletop Dungeons&Dragons games. Real time combat is NOT a RPG.
I feel like part of the issue is that you kind of shrug off the term jrpg early on. You're right- it's different from early rpgs (which came to be known as western rpgs) and are known as roleplaying games in the context that you play the role of a predefined character with less agency through a game with a large focus on a set story. Whether it should still have rpg in the name is debatable, but I feel like treating something like kingdom hearts as an isolated game and comparing it to modern warfare 2 instead of tackling jrpgs as a whole just doesnt tell the whole story.
A game in which you make numbers increase basically. By today's standards for RPGs even cookie clicker would pass as an RPG because RPGs are all about increasing stats these days and the amount of cookies you have is basically a stat.
J-RPGs and J-Tabletop RPGs are very similar in that they are both very rigid in story outcome. Japanese table tops are more like reading a play with friends with occasional fights, and cooking.
you have excellent taste in BGMs
Easy solution, call games that deal mainly with numbers rather than making choices that matter Character Sheet Games. You're more concerned with the numbers than the character, then the game becomes about the sheet rather than the character.
people don't consider Kingdom Hearts an RPG because it has numbers, they consider it an RPG because it has Final Fantasy characters in it.
immediately after watching this UA-cam recommends me "a solid 20 minutes of useless information" never have a been more deeply and personally offended and attacked.
This is like the South Park episode where Stan and gang were calling Harley Bikers "fags", and in the end, Webster ended up changing the definition of "fag" from derogatory homosexual slang to "Harley Bikers"
in skyrim you were caught trying to cross the border
Wait, but don't you already "choose your role that you want to play" when choosing what game to even play? So shouldn't that first rule be redundant and not exist?
Thats the stupidest thing I have ever heard
love that underdome theme in background & great video
16:00 So I don't think this game is that replayable
That's where you are wrong. Something in this game makes it quite replayable even if the story is very linear
I think dismissing jRPGs completely is incredibly shortsighted. there's a reason that the terms Japanese RPG and Western RPG exist. In Japan, their rpgs came to be about playing the role of the character you're given and playing their story through with them, while in Western rpgs you typically have your own character, hand made by you. both have their own strengths and weaknesses but to throw jRPGs in the bin right out of the gate is, like I said, severely short sighted and makes the discussion not worth having imo
JRPGs are about as painful as 4th edition D&D with a single player managing multiple pre-made sheets and a first-time dungeon master trying to make things more complicated than they should be with homebrew gimmicks and forcefully telling his story without taking in consideration the player’s actions, nor implementing a difficulty curve in favor of spikes. It’s somehow simultaneously easy enough for a baby to complete and stupidly complex that requires a supercomputer to figure out how the bizarre mechanics even work half the time. If I beat a boss and still get my ass handed to me in the cutscene because story or continue to see tutorial pop ups for some newly-introduced ssa-sdrawkcab gameplay mechanic that defenestrates everything I learned 30+ hours into a semi-linear game, then there’s a problem with the core design philosophy of the genre. At this point they might as well just produce a 25-40 episode anime and cut the bullshit.
Actually the reason jrpg is what it is is because of technical limitations. There was this japanese guy that liked western rpgs (western rpgs back then were turn based dnd like, you still could choose your character). He tries to bring rpgs to japan but Japans pc were not good enough so he just took the turn base system and left everything else. So jrpg are literally a lesser rpg.
So what genre is the mother series under? You can play different roles but there is an over arching story.
peoples views on what an RPG actually is has been completely warped because companies will tag any game with any remote RPG element as an RPG to increase its reach.
A pokemon game where you are a team rocket grunt, with GTA like missions would be awesome
Yeah I think you made a good distinction at the beginning with traditional rpg vs jrpg, and perhaps peoples definition of 'what is an rpg' mostly comes down to whether they grew up playing pen and paper, PC or a Console
just because one game is a sandbox rpg and the other has you play a set role, doesnt make either of the two less of an rpg. the one game lets you play YOU and the other has you play THE CHARACTER.
pretty good video none the less, a friend and i had a discussion about this a couple of years ago too and just started games like diablo "stat-grinder", zelda/witcher style games "character rpg", jrpgs "group rpgs" and sandbox-rpgs "sandbox rpg".
before these names it was fairly annoying to describe a game to each other because the term rpg just doesnt mean anything anymore.
Rpg's are a genre of video games that integrate player customization through statistics
Got this in my recommended, glad I did. Refresing take on it m8, great content.
RPGs are just adventure games with the additional variables of branching paths, rivaling factions, classes, and racial/cultural biases that restrict what you can and can’t do, which encourages multiple playthroughs. If you can do pretty much everything on a single game with little restriction, then it’s not an RPG. Skyrim is one of these faux-RPGs. The player should should require a minimum total magic level to join the mages college or be outright rejected from joining the thieves guild if failing the initiation. The closest we get to role-playing are side quest with a last minuet kill (character) for (different reward) formula. No real impact on the world outside of the stupidly linear story-driven faction quests.
Mount & Blade, for example, is the gold standard for what an RPG should be. The world is a sandbox with plenty to do. There are multiple factions fighting each other in real time who can reshape borders like in Risk regardless of your input. Sidequests have a failure option which damages your reputation with that faction. Your stats actually have an effect on your ability to read, perform medical care, build siege machines, bow accuracy, athletics & movement in heavy gear, being attractive to possible spouses, etc. Party members will actually leave you or start a mutiny if you’re performing actions that go against their moral code. The player has the options play whatever kind of character they want including bounty hunter, usurper, slave trader, tax collector, arena champion, village raider, and many more.
Choices *and consequences* are the biggest factor in what makes a game an RPG. _How good_ of an RPG it is depends on how many choices and consequences there are.
Skyrim would be more of an RPG if you wanted to get into the mage's college but they deny you entry since you didn't meet the relatively high magic skills requirements.
You *chose* to specc into other skills, and you suffer the *consequences* of not having access to certain locations.
Of course this is just a minor example.
Mount and Blade as you said does this everytime and with much more severe consequences.
Skyrim's intro is purposefully very vague. All that is said is that you were trying to cross the border into Skyrim and "walked into that (Imperial) ambush".
It is also a horrible way to start a game. There is to much jargon, and people just filter jargon. I know what they tried to do, but they did drop the ball in presenting what kind of game Skyrim was.
@@Cloud_Seeker Oh yeah, I agree. Skyrim's intro is pretty poorly designed. I think it's a terrible idea to start the player off without any control for so long. Could have trimmed that down a lot. Many different ways the concept could have been executed better. I mean, why not give the player full control as soon as they step off the cart? If you wonder too far the guards attack you and when Alduin attacks, all the fire raining down burns off your cuffs. From there, just let the player escape Helgen in an open sand box. They might run to the Keep or hop over a wall or bust through the gates... give the player freedom.
I'm still baffled just how vague the term "RPG" is. Especially when some of the games I love are considered RPG. But the arguments here make sense against that.
Edit: I forgot about the JRPG rabbit hole. That's also involved in this whole argument.
JRPG is the only real RPG. Turn based or timed combat. Most other games described are action, adventure, FPS, NOT a RPG bc of its combat.
@@hepwo91222 But is it really just the combat? There should be more to it than just that.
@@noahfessenden6478 in a videogame gameplay is everything, so early RPG's established combat similar to tabletop Dungeons and Dragons, instead of rolling a dice, you just chose from a menu, it was turn based. Over time, we saw RPG's that were still basically turn based, but had timers or comedown periods, I would still classify them as RPG's. But any videogame where one can spam attacks in real time with the press of a button, I would disqualify from being an actual RPG.
@@hepwo91222 But there's still more to gameplay than just the combat. There's the stuff around the combat. The interaction, the exploration, the questing, the experience points, etc. That's a part of a typical RPG whether or not it follows the DnD format.
@@noahfessenden6478 videogames, the interactive experience when classifying a game into a genre, it's a good rule of thumb to do it through gameplay. I wouldn't call a racing game a RPG bc I could level up/upgrade my car. RPG is really the most misused and overused genre. Basically if it's not turn based or timed combat, it's not a RPG.
This is what rpgs were defined as but what is a "modern rpg"? What is considered a rpg today, and what does it consist?
So what your saying is that way of the samurai is the best rpg right?
I really don't understand "wacky" approach to role playing games. Like I get it that in real d&d you can roll high luck challenge and loot atomic bomb and your game master can let you drop it on hoover dam. But games are not a fucking d&d. Developers can be inspired by their experience of playing d&d but it's impossible to create game that will react to every stupid thing that will come to players mind. If you want to play a sociopath murderer who kills every single person he meets play hotline miami. For me true role playing games are about complex branching narratives where player is given enough freedom withing plot without ultimately braking it. True role-playing games let you explore psychological, political and sociological themes. Disco Elysium for example is not really about "wacky" shit that main character does when he fails roll, its about post revolutionary country where you encounter different ideologies, struggle with your human nature etc. Fun roll fails are more like a gimmick and just enjoyable little thing but not the ultimate reason for playing this game.
In some cases by your argument DnD isnt an rpg depending on how railroaded you are. Sure you can get to decide the small details and how you approach the story, but in the end you the player may not influence the overall story at all.
Build and approach variety is more important. In which case kingdom hearts at least lets you use different startegies if you want (more magic or more block or more etc.) While with call of duty... the build is essentially the same every time and the linearity gets rid of a lot of wiggleroom for approaches. It's all really semantics
is Castlevania: Symphony of The Night an RPG, then?
If you're talking about table top, then D&D modules were since the earliest ones designed with as much player freedom as possible. If you're not taking advantage of that and choose to be railroaded, then that's your problem, but where's the fun in that? Doesn't make D&D as a whole less of an RPG. That's why the best D&D games try to recreate that experience.
Defining rpgs by builds doesn't make sense since that's not role-playing is
Talking about not talking about jrpgs while playing jrpgs
For example, Andre Drummond is averaging 15.2 rpg in the 2019-2020 NBA season.
There is actually multiple very different endings for fire emblem, and a good amount of choices that affect how things play out.
Halfway through realizing Skyrim is going to be used as an example of an RPG.
Dare I even keep going. Jfc..
So basically, even if there's no role-playing, if you can build or choose your character's stats, gear, abilities, and levels, or if your actions or choices have an effect on story or progression, it's typically referred to as an RPG.
JRPG means Japanese RPG. It doesn't have to be from Japan, it just has to be a style of RPG that's based on the old Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest/Dragon Warrior system. It can be turn-based, have stats and gear that goes into gear slots, or have some other major game design that makes it feel especially Japanese.
Kingdom Hearts would not count as a JRPG, despite being Japan-level weird, having a sometimes anime style, and sharing a sub-universe with Final Fantasy. Kingdom Hearts would be an American ARPG, or Action RPG. It could be called Western, but since Disney is associated with USA and Western often refers to Cowboys and the Wild West Pioneer theme specifically, let's avoid that.
That said, I've thought about this myself. The other day I saw someone call things like Mass Effect, Oblivion, and Fallout JRPGs and I started to wonder if the genre RPG even meant what it used to anymore and whether we needed to re-categorize genres using a tags system instead of a label system.
As someone who hates ARPGs, loves turn-based JRPGs in the FF style (Both RPG), doesn't like games like R-Type, but loves Megaman clones (Both sometimes referred to as Side-Scrolling Shooters or Shoot-Em-Ups) (And Megaman also called a Side-Scrolling Platformer, which doesn't really help much since that's like half of all games ever), I think a tags system would indeed be better.
What is that cell-shaded, medieval looking game? Looks interesting
Skryim's opening is like 10 mins max if you just run through everything, definitely not 30-45 lol.
After watching this video I have a few problems. One is this about a RPG is about playing a role. Meaning. Playing as a thief or knight. This is not what an RPG is about. You are supposed to play a character. One made by someone else, or one made by you. Picking a role is not what roleplay is about.
I never considered kingdom hearts as an RPG i always considered it a story driven action adventure game
Kingdom Hearts is not an RPG. Might be a JRPG, but not RPG.
A story based action adventure with jrpg elements. Not even a real jrpg.
Language is complex, and the definition of a word is fluid, most people use RPG to define a numbers based game, so thats the definition of it, just because of its roots doesn't mean the current definition of it is any less valid. Yes, you can try to change that definition, but you can't invalidate a word just because you don't agree with its current definition.
Also, games can be in multiple genres.
@@CrisisRadio So you don't consider slang words part of language? Also, can you give me an example of your "descriptive words reman the same" point? I'm not quite understanding how it holds up.
I feel you can argue for fire emblem as an RPG kinda like mount and blade but with some railroad elements but I agree it probably isn't a pure RPG experience
I've come to the conclusion that trying to get people to call something like jRPGs something else that doesn't have the phrase "Role Playing" in it would be trying to get people to call American Football something else because you don't primarily use your feet to play them.
It's just so ingrained into our vocabulary that trying to rename them to be more technically correct is just not practical.
What if they made a game that was SO choice driven that you could literally go the WHOLE game is "just a normal guy" who doesbt even slightly get caught up in the main story?
that would be awesome.
I do agree. If you make a character that is literally able to just avoid the game, the story isn't about you anymore.
@@Commandant_Aeon Nah. That person is no longer part of the story. If you make such a character in my D&D group I will have you make a new character. The character you made at first is no longer a play character that is part of the story. It is an NPC that hangs around in the background.
@@Cloud_Seeker except we are not speaking about a TTRPG, but a singleplayer game where this type of freedom would be awesome as it would imply a huge progress in the informatic domain.
@@Commandant_Aeon It doesn't matter if it is a SP videogame or a TTRPG. If you make a character that is more interested in how to survive day by day then doing the story the game has to offer. Go and make a new character. That person is not the focus of the story and will never be the focus of the story. His struggles are just important for him. He is just a NPC that go around and do their daily chores. The focus of the story is the main characters that take part in the story being told.
There is actually a game like that, or something like it at least. Its called Kingdom Come Deliverance. You can just be a peasent forever. But if you want to actually go somewhere in the game, you have to take part in the main quest. If you make a character that fail to take part in the main quest, it is game over. That can happen in Kingdom Come Deliverance.
Obviously means Rocket Propelled Grenade. Not to be confused with JRPG: Japanese Retail Porn Game.
Two vastly different things
RPGs never promised you the ability to pick the role you play, just that you play a role.
I have a different experience with RPG. Because I came to learn the term RP (role-play) from theater and not from DnD/ other tabletop games so when I first found out about the term RPG as a game genre I connected it with you playing a character in a story. And I know that a theater performance is called a play in English, but in my language, if you translate directly it translates to role-play. So I think that it has had this problem since the dawn of the term because if you take the literal meaning of the words the term is made up of it only mean you are playing a role in a game and so it encompasses almost every game. And it does not shock me that japan had a different interpretation of the phrase than some of the western world.
Im not sure unkillable npc is necessarily a bad thing, in a dnd campaign killing random npcs with no character motivation is considered bad roleplaying and is pretty discouraged by the players and dm alike.
Freedom of choice is important and character actions should drive thw plot but total freedom does not always make sense in a roleplaying game.
fuuuck i came up with that exact mario rpg argument i thought i was so clever
Theres definitely a difference between open world rpg's like new Vegas and narrative rpg's like the mass effect trilogy. Skyrim seems to try and be both and doesnt excell in either
good video I agree 100% that's been very annoying to me that's why I like MMORPGs a lot it's because the R is actually represented to a very okay degree
How many games of which do we play a role?
An RPG is a Game where you Play a Role.
What is *not* and RPG?
What the fuck are goofy and daffy doing in a goddamn rpg game with an anime character as the main character
There's a key difference between an RPG and a game with "RPG elements".
That being? I would dare to say player expression but a lot of RPG element games have better player expression than actual RPG's through the mechanics of the game
I think there is really only one major criteria that should define a role playing game, and that is player agency regarding the story. If the player can change the outcome of the major outcomes of the story, then it’s a role playing game. Otherwise it is not. I don’t think character creation defines a role playing game. I think it’s perfectly fine to have a defined starting point, but leave the rest up to you. A good example of a game that has a defined starting point but good player agency over the story is The Witcher series.
I feel like you're really understating the value of mechanical choices to "role playing." Old school RPGs used mechanics to define specific kinds of characters, because "rogue" or "fighter" was generally the baseline of the characters the game was designed to support. If fighting is the main way you interact with the game/world (which it generally is) then it's still one of the biggest decisions a player CAN make about who their avatar is. "I'm a strong warrior" vs. "I'm a clever mage." Seems like quite the difference to me.
I mean, you even bring up examples like pokemon, where you can choose to play a particular character if you want to. Or not. Most people choose to just do whatever they, personally, want, without any thought to the character their playing as. But isn't that also a role? Is "me, but in this world" not a character I could conceivably create and play? You also use both Kingdom Hearts and Skyrim as examples, yet but them on opposite sides of this dichotomy. I mean sure, you can choose where you go in Skyrim along the main quest, to a certain extent. And you can choose how many activities you want to perform while you're doing the min quest, and which ones. But couldn't you say the same about Kingdom Hearts? You can choose the order you go to different worlds, to a certain extent, and you can choose to do various minor, irrelevant things along the way. At what point does Skyrim become an RPG, exactly?
Turns out "role playing" is an entirely vague concept that can be applied to any game at the player's discretion. You acknowledge this, of course, which only makes this insistence that everyone else is using the term wrong even more confusing. If "role playing" is an incredibly broad concept that can be applied to almost any game, then what separates the games *you* consider to be RPGs from anything else? Story acknowledgement? Then how many choices do you have to be able to make before it qualifies? Character customization? Then wouldn't most multiplayer games, like Splatoon, also qualify?
Also that big diatribe about how vague the term RPG is just reminded me of the exact same arguments against the term "moba." People are using a very consistent definition of the term with various subcategories which are, in turn, well defined and easy to understand. Feel free to toss your own definitions into the ring if you don't like ours, but character driven RPGs represent only a single fraction of what other people are actually talking about when they say "RPG." And maybe suggest another name for all the other games people call RPGs so we can continue having conversations about those games.
I'm aware this is a... *late* reply, but it's one I felt the need to make.
Well done. This is exactly what I was thinking while watching the video.
Thank you, this helped a lot.