It is a tiring discussion, especially with the people who think it's an objective, binary definition....this IS an RPG, this is NOT an RPG...exhausting
Never understood this. Like, there is distinct genre - "Action-RPG" (which is also kinda continuum, but anyway, it fits better), why not just apply it and move on?
@@nicolasf9772outside of marketing why apply it at all? I get that players knowing a rough idea of what the game is before they buy a game. But outside of that I'm not sure what description a game has to do with the enjoyment of it. I know it's a human trait to categorize things but surely the only important thing is if you enjoy playing it.
I really appreciate how your videos give an honest behind the scenes perspective without corporate talk or circular, empty buzz terms. It's refreshing. You're especially good at explaining game mechanics and the valid or perhaps more questionable reasons behind them.
Gating: I always liked how Gothic handled gating. Almost all of the world was accessible from the start. The only gates where monsters and much higher level NPCs that you would have to fight or avoid. It was a very natural barrier, for most players passing those funnels only when they where ready.
Try applying that logic to a TTRPG and many players will cry that you didn't balance the world (encounters). Video game linear game progression and main character attitude has a lot to answer for.
@@innui100its about communication. If you explain it to them first and they agree its ok. If you start doing it despite previously having all encounters balanced then of course and they should complain.
Perfect example of logical soft gating - Legend of Grimrock 2 had a puzzle to enter the graveyard (an area just off the main central zone), but the only thing a player saw when they got there was a moving stone. The actual puzzle was explained in a set of notes the player found in the Archive, a sub dungeon beyond the sewers which required going like 2 zones in the other direction to get to. If you knew the solution from a prior playthrough or somehow randomly guessed it you could get in early, despite the enemies being much stronger than a new player is typically equipped to handle, but I appreciated the fact that there was no arbitrary meta requirement like player level to get in.
Great video. Thank you Tim. A game is an RPG - Character Creation is a must - Character Creation Choices must matter. Class, Race, Background, Skills, Birth Sign, Traits. Games must check these and change accordingly during gameplay - Character Appearance does not matter - How you act in-game should matter. Game should recognize to your choices - Story should not be too dependent on player actions or character attributes - Story has to be non linear. Go and do whatever you want. Tim prefers player driven stories and does not like story driven games. - Multiple Endings should be expected based on what the player has been doing in game - World has to be big enough to support exploration and player choice. Lots of side quests. A big world is important.
3:42 YES! Not only to be a good character, but also an evil one. Which I think a lot of modern games are afraid of. Also of making actions have consequences.
While I sort of understand the lack of many evil options (due to coding taking time) I don't really like the lack of consequences. There's a lot of games where thievery could land you in jail and even if the game time skipped to you getting out you could've easily failed the main quest (most of them have some sort of urgency if not in code then in writing). And if the game stopped making autosaves (assuming it has those) or informed the player that "while you rotted away in jail the Dark Lord won" upon release from the jail to let the player know not to overwrite previous saves there would be no harm in that.
Yeah it takes extra effort to make options good vs evil, faction vs faction, or just solving quests in different ways or helping different people by doing a quest one way or another. Effort that is needed to make a game greater. We should not encourage developers and studios to do less. I am very unimpressed by the options in pretty much all new games. Just awful how they lack options.
@@fredrik3880 Oh I totally agree, having those options does make the game greater, as long as they are done to the same standard. From what I've heard BG3 "evil" run has basically no content compared to the goody-two-shoes run (and neutral run has essentially 0 content, you must choose). It's not really an "evil" run but Witcher 2 still has the most insane branch I've ever played and that must've been a lot of effort for them.
@@Syaniiti bg 3 was good compared to new games but that is a low bar indeed. Bg 2 is better and it is like 20 years older. And made by fewer people with a lower budget. Lol a sad state of affairs indeed.
@@fredrik3880 I count BG3 among new games since it came out relatively recently (at least in my mind), I just found combat in that game to be so boring and the UI so cumbersome I never bothered to find out for sure how much evil playthrough content there was. Not to mention the amount of problems with the plot, the terrible companions and other issues I have with that game. Wrath of the RIghteous is the newest crpg I've played that I'd say was really good.
My favourite pseudo/borderline RPG is Crusader Kings 3. Certainly a strategy game for the most part, but it does a very good job at making you feel like the character through it's engaging events and systems. Difficult to get into and doesn't have a story in the traditional sense but after a while you can get some really engaging character narratives out of it. I'd recommend giving it a go. The only negative is it's dlc is annoying. It feels like the game is missing parts without them.
It definitely "feels" like an RPG when I play it. I don't play many games without RPG "elements", and CK3 is definitely my favourite strategy game, mainly because of how relatively RPG-like it is compared to other games in the grand strategy genre.
One of my friends recently decided to try and get into RPG games. He's avoided them his whole life because he said he found them boring as a kid, and as an adult he's just stuck to genres he knows he likes. I love RPG's and so he asked me for some recommendations, but he said the 2 rules to any games I suggest are that they can't be turn based or sci-fi themed. As many of you know, this excludes a lot of games, especially the earliest RPGs because of the "no turn based" rule. It made me re-evaluate what I actually consider to be an RPG game. I think your definitions are great, and I do agree with them! It's just a pity my pal will never get to experience DragonQuest or Mass Effect because of his 2 rules. Oh well, each to their own I suppose :P
It's pretty funny because there was a time I also didn't like turn based games. I used to only play modern games, but then in 2021 i decided to play jrpgs because i got bored of modern games. (It was also the only genre I had never played) I had to get used to the turn based system, but I eventually got it. I don’t watch anime, but I quite enjoy jrpgs now. I've become such a fan of jrpgs, I even have a character from that genre as my profile picture.
An RPG is an experience which allows the player to create or adopt a character who can make choices and those choices dramatically affect the character, the world they're in and the people that inhabit it. What gets included alongside that whether it be setting, main story, combat, companions, exploration, dungeons, puzzles, quests etc should only be extensions of this one main pillar (of eternity).
I pretty much agree with this definition. It’s all about the level of *ROLE-PLAYING* the game supports. The reason I find this discussion so exhausting is because people are often dishonest with their arguments. You’ve got people trying to arbitrarily gatekeep a genre they like, then other people who are trying to exploit the prestige of that genre to claim any old game with numbers and levels is an RPG.
13:00-13:30 Drawing "a hard line in the sand about 'this is a RPG and 'this isn't' is doomed to fail.... Until you're not a RPG anymore." ;) (Couldn't resist.) I agree regarding the continuum from the creative viewpoint and think the much needed public "debate" could be far healthier than it is. There are, indeed, many different kinds of RPGs: Choice and Consequence RPGs, e.g. those Tim most often has worked on in which the player creates their own character and makes choices that can subtly and, even, drastically change the game world itself; Prewritten Protagonist RPGs in which the player steps into the role of a preconceived/prewritten character the very same as an actor steps into a preconceived role, i.e. the Red Dead series, and can possibly "nudge" the character one way or another to get a slightly different ending for the character, but their actions have no impact on the larger game world itself that is not also prewritten; etc.; and even hybrid RPGs in which players step into a preconceived/prewritten role, but nonetheless are often presented with choices and consequences that affect the game world, i.e. The Witcher 3. On the subject from a creative standpoint, I would contend only that we lack the lexicon to sufficiently differentiate games that fall along this continuum to avoid confusion and misleading marketing. What I believe has poisoned the debate is the "game must be all things to all people" mindset prompted by notions, e.g. "we have to pull the RPG crowd into our action game" or "we have to pull more action game afficionados into our RPG"...so we can sell more copies.
His statement "until you're not an RPG anymore" doesn't refute the previous statement about there being no hard line. There is no hard line between day and night, but that doesn't change the fact that there are large spans of time in which it is objectively correct to say "it is (or isn't) day (or night)."
@@lrinfi It's not much of a joke. You intentionally tried to make it look as though he contradicted the _main thesis_ of his video, when he clearly hadn't. That just feels disrespectful. I guarantee he was annoyed if he read it. It just reads like you genuinely missed the point, or that you're being a rude troll, not like something genuinely funny. But sure, criticize _me_ instead of engaging in self-reflection.
@@DavidCDrake Here lies the (amusing) "contradiction": Tim says *you* cannot draw a hard line in the sand and say a game is a RPG or not a RPG, but he can and he can because he's doing so subjectively. In fact, we can all do so subjectively without refutation. Obviously, we cannot do so *objectively* without refutation. Some (or none) may be interested to know this is why Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy proposed that the objective/subjective dichotomy, illusory though it is, is insufficient grounds from which to converse about the orientation and trajectory of society and/or humanity itself. Subject and object are themselves grammatical constructs and society (as I'm sure most everyone is aware by now) has no shared orientation or trajectory, atm. In fact, most everyone is attempting to reify their inner world -- their subjective -- as THE (singular) outer world we all must live in and looking upon everyone else's as invalid from their objective view-point. This is dualistic perception and thinking par excellence and proof positive (to me, at least) of Iain McGilchrist's argument, for example, that ours is a predominately "left brain hemisphere" culture. In our purely "spatial" manner of perception and thinking, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy suggests we are overlooking the role of time, aspects of which he dubbed the "prejective" and "trajective". From the Stanford Encylopedia entry summarizing Rosenstock's life and work: "[H]e argues that dialectical thought is triadic, but anything that really happens and makes itself manifest, i.e. appears (erscheint), is at least quadrilateral. It must be something in space *and* time, and hence conform to the inner/outerness or subjective/objective matrix of space, as well as the trajective and prejective-ness of time." "Now I a fourfold vision see And a fourfold vision is given to me Tis fourfold in my supreme delight And three fold in soft Beulahs night And twofold Always. May God us keep From Single vision & Newtons sleep.” - William Blake
@@lrinfi Ah, so it was _not_ just a joke. Thank you for the erudite response. I still think you're somewhat misinterpreting the "hard line" remark, but I've already belabored this topic (and am probably being a bit too "spicy" today), so I'll just say I do respect much of the perspective you're sharing. Cheers!
Had the pleasure of playing Arcanum for the first time thanks to these videos. Playing a sickly mage with 14 int and 14 con that kills things with two hits of Harm but passes out nearly every combat encounter. No other game has let me do that. Big fan of that stuff.
Wow, this is perfect timing. For the past couple years I've been playing a lot of looter shooter style ARPGs, but I've been interested in adding more traditional style RPGs, so I'm also playing Mass Effect. So my mind has been a lot on the question of what what differentiates RPGs from other styles of games. Thank you for covering this!
Mass Effect is good, but I wouldn't exactly call it a traditional RPG. Baldur's Gate II and Planescape: Torment are 'traditional' RPGs. Mass Effect is an Action RPG.
As I'm drinking my morning coffee, an example of a well written character (or group of characters) being part of an RPG, is This War of Mine. While not having the traditionally associated dice rolls or turned based combat, or really much combat at all, it has all the roleplaying aspects of being in a war torn country as a civilian, and certainly made me put myself into the shoes of my group. @Timothy Cain, it's an excellent game if you've not played it.
@@giampaolomannucci8281 There are custom scenarios where you can loosely create characters from a dozen or so backgrounds. And there aren't a lot of opportunities for either the custom or standard characters to express themselves. The choices you get to make are more about survival vs empathy and less about individual expression. That said, when you're playing an old man with his wife sick and hungry at home and you're watching a soldier assault a woman in broad daylight... what do you do?
@@giampaolomannucci8281 no you're absolutely right, I started thinking about what you said in your group V single player comment, and I wanted to use that as an example. While you don't control a single individual, or even craft a character, the quality of the writing of the preset characters is so strong that you can make it work, Mentally playing as those preset characters, so I consider it an RPG, even though you have a little less agency?
This reminds of the "what is an anime?" discussion. Everyone is very polarised and sidetracked by extreme examples. Rpg, just like anime, i think exist on a gradient of characteristics that are associated with them but not always present, thus making them more or less of what they are. There a lot of RPG elements, but after thinking for some time about the rpg games that i played, i think the characteristics that sum up RPG genre are: 1. Presence of a character progression. Via gear and/or lvl up system. 2. Presence of story choices, that make you want to save a game before you pick anything. I wish a came up a third one, but I can't think anything yet. If a game has those characteristics together, its an rpg, and not a game with rpg elements. Take out progression and you ll have a visual novel or a game movie. Take out story choices and you'll get action rpgs, slashers and souls-likes which focus more on combat and progression. These characteristics also describe immersive sims, but in IS case, i think first person perspective is a must, which is not a requirement for RPGs. So it basically means, that every IS is an RPG, but not every RPG is an IS. That's just my opinion from the last 3-5 rpgs i played lately.
Hey Tim! I've been creating some subtitles for your videos (mostly for my personal notes) as they are such a great treasure trove regarding game design (e.g. how you've made conversation variations based on class and race for Arcanum), I would love to get in touch with you to share what I've done already.
An RPG is a game that emphasises the ability to make choices, and then having to live with those respective choices. This can be either via the narrative, the systems, or more ideally, a mix of both. As long as you emphasise choice and consequence sufficiently, then should you want it, you have earned the moniker. When games tout "RPG Elements", they just mean they've incorporated these systems, but stripped them of their purpose in facilitating choice and consequence. A narrative that emphasises player choice can have multiple forms. For some this consists of a non-linear structure where you pursue vague goals through different means, with your means having consequences For others there's more of a linear scenario, but one with branching paths to accommodate the player's choices (e.g. major points of The Witcher 2). Also note, that being able to experience the exact same things, the exact same way, but in a different order, is not a form of player choice. For systems this usually manifests most openly as experience levels, which in turn net you points, which you invest in stats, skills, and abilities. And these investments should allow the player to approach situations in the world (even if only combat) in new and different ways. Despite their extreme linearity, this is the primary way in which JRPGs qualify for the label; by emphasising player choice in character builds and system. In emphasising both of these elements, you get to the purest and most distilled form of an RPG: A fully simulated world, where you exist as a character of the world, and you exert your influence upon the world. The world and its characters must of course react and respond to you appropriately. Technology isn't quite there, but that is RPG ideal: a simulationist's wet dream. I do know this definition does allow few oddities. For example, Visual Novels will likely qualify as RPGs - but if they've emphasised choices and consequences to that degree, I think they've earned it. It also means most MMORPGs barely qualify - but that's true and I don't blame them; in this environment "bad choices = griefing". It probably disqualifies a lot of JRPGs too. I have also derived a basic litmus test for whether something is an RPG or not: Let 2 people start from the same baseline, and enjoy the game for however long, Should they then end up with what is fundamentally the same characters and world state, then it's not an RPG.
Hi Timothy, thank you so much for your great videos. You motivate and inspire me a lot. Could you make a video on how to communicate better with players through game design? Some players don’t understand certain features and think they are bugs.
To me it’s: “This feels/does not feel like an RPG”, but at the core of that is “do I get to make character interaction choices that feels like they matter to the shape of the outcome”. They might not, but if they feel like it, it’s still ok for me. There are tons of other parameters but for me that’s a huge indicator for whether it will “feel” like an RPG to me. Funnily enough that also means that games that do hidden gotchas to decisions feel less like RPGs to me, because I don’t feel like I got to make a decision that mattered since I had no way of guessing at the outcome.
I've been thinking about this a lot and the most concise coherent definition I can come up with is any game where you navigate a menu to execute combat commands
It's a good checklist. Only thing I would add and it often seems like you actually don't need to mention it but I still think it's helpful in any discussion about what constitutes an RPG in video game form: The player character skills are what matter, not the players. Unless it's an Action RPG of course, which adds in player skill. (For example such as aiming a weapon, or dodging attacks in real-time)
As a player, I enjoy when we’re allowed to think for ourselves and find unmentioned invisible choices. I like when it feels like I found some new way, even if it’s programmed in, it feels natural because there was no indication of it being possible. That really makes me feel like I’m playing my own way. Like give me 2-3 obvious choices, but give me other options that I may not have thought of the first or second play through. Like if my options are to politely ask for something, or kill and take it, but the character also really likes something. Let there be a hidden choice to trade them the item(s) they like/want for what I want. Or let me talk to someone else to do my dirty work, so that doesn’t directly reflect on me to the other NPC’s. I like options and finding new ways to things that make me feel intelligent for interacting with the medium in that way and being rewarded for it.
This is always a funny discussion. RPGs have always been rather hard to actually define and part of why is simply due the sheer influence RPGs have had on so many other games over decades
Hey Timn i have a question you can do a video on. What toys did you play with growing up? I read a book called mad minutes of Vietnam. In it the author talks about the toys he palyed with growing up. Like toy soilders , ships made out of cardboard and the nighboord kids would come together and host large toy battles. What type of toys did you play with growing up? What were some of your favorite toys? When you played with friends what did you play/do.
Tim you were talking about character creation, so I want to know how hard would it be to consider a character beautiful or ugly based on the geometric settings you gave your character on creation, and have this impact dialogue options similar to other stats. Like seduction and what not.
Hi Tim, could you please talk about mentorship from the perspective of a programmer? What makes a good mentor? Is mentorship something that employers value? What are the benefits and drawbacks of being a mentor?
I agree, thinking rpgs as an continuum work better. I think that you can have different types of rpgs with difference emphasis or focus, that maybe feature some aspects, from character creation to dialogue trees. The reason is that I fear that a rigid definition might end up excluding a lot of the crpg history and evolution (because old game maybe not able to do x or Y, but does not mean they were not trying), and sometimes even future. Also, while I start mostly playing more classic western crpgs, I later moved a bit more toward jrpgs and specially, Wizardry inspired dungeon crawlers (which there is a lot in Japan), which make me think a lot about the genre.
Judging by the fact that a lot of them don't check many of these points, I'm wondering if there are any JRPGs that you enjoy. I really like a lot of both western and eastern RPGs, but usually for different reasons. Also, how often do CRPG developers look at what Japan does for inspiration?
Speaking personally as an RPG fan that has never really been able to get into JRPGs (unless you count FromSoft games), I'm just now realising one of the reasons they've never appealed much to me. I tried to give JPRGs another chance a while ago, and I put about 30-40 hours into Persona 5. There were aspects of it I liked, but the No. 1 frustration I had with the game was that I didn't really feel like I was in control of my character. I couldn't customise him except for the combat skills, I couldn't make any meaningful dialogue choices, and so on. Whatever it is that I truly love about (Western) RPGs, which is something to do with player freedom and the consequences of your choices, most JRPGs seem to be lacking specifically on those aspects. I'd be interested to hear from a JRPG fan what they enjoy about those games and whether the "role-playing" is just less important to them or if they understand the meaning of "RPG" differently from me.
The overlap is not strong. JRPGs came out of very early CRPGs like Ultima and especially Wizardry. So they started out as a copy of a copy, all roads bent, then diverged quite heavily from there. The only influence from a JRPG back on-to a CRPG I'm aware of is FFVII on Planescape: Tormen'ts FMV spell cutscenes.
@@slynt_ Keeping in mind that JRPGs definitely have their own spectrum of elements like Tim was talking about (Hell, even within the Final Fantasy series you have entries like 1 and 3 with much more direct Wizardry and Ultima heritage, some that are more story based while keeping player guided character progression and turned based combat as focuses , and some that are essentially action-adventure games) it's hard to say exactly what I enjoy about the genre. In many games, I enjoy the sense of going on an adventure with well written characters (to a similar way that I've enjoyed companions in Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, New Vegas, etc.) while some are more about mechanics like resource management, exploration and combat tactics. I'll grant you that there isn't a lot of actual "role playing" in these games and the terminology is kind of vestigial from the games that originally influenced them. I just grew up playing them and find them fun in their own way.
@@killthefoozle I've seen people from Obsidian praise Chrono Trigger and I think I've heard that Final Fantasy was an influence on Bioware. I agree that the genres have branched out from a common root, but there are enough mechanics shared between the two or ideas that aren't antithetical to the other's design philosophy that I could see Japanese RPGs having an influence on the West and vice versa.
@@slynt_ This is funny because as far as JRPGs go the Persona series probably has more "role playing" than most by virtue of the social/life sim elements being completely up to the player's choices and being a central part of the games' progression. Ultimately everyone will play through the same story and see the same ending but the characters and activities they engaged with along the way will differ.
Great list. I would also add that for me there is more emphasis on your character skill and not player skill in RPGs. For example, no matter how good you are as a player, you should not be able to picklock everything if your character does not invest in the skill.
Hey Tim thank you very much for your wonderful channel and your insights in the gaming industry. Keep up the good work. My quest is what do you think about toxicity, where does it come from (is it caused by the games or is it caused by lack of moderation) and how can it be solved? Thanks.
Great video! And I agree about not getting too hung up on genres. While they are good for people trying to find games they might like, I don't think it does anyone good to argue such details when potential buyers can simply look at the specific features any given game has to offer. I often find discourse these days to be more about claiming credit for something inane not much unlike sports fans who act like they are on the team themselves...one example I've seen is stuff about Fromsoft's games in particular, whether they are what they call JRPGs specifically, or RPGs at all, etc. Another is the Yakuza series which has recently shifted to its original Japanese title Like A Dragon, which has had a beat em up action style of gameplay up until a turn based system was at first shown off as an April fools joke but quickly became popular enough for the developers to try at sincerely. I'd always seen the series as inherently RPG-esque with all its focus on side content and stats and item management, etc., but some seemed to view it as some betrayal as a complete shift in genre. So I guess it's something to be wary of if working on a long running series. Metroid Prime is not really related in any sense but I feel is important when talking about these kinds of definitions. Nintendo (or was it Retro?) had said something along the lines of it being a First Person Adventure rather than an FPS, which at the time had worried some who had been used to the series up to that point being a side scrolling adventure game. It was still very different in pacing but I think most would say kept the overall sense of exploration as well as how thrilling the combat could be. Not sticking too close to expectations for some of these ideas FPS games typically had I feel paved the way for many other games such as Bioshock or even the newer Fallout games to be more palatable for a wider audience. Personally, I've been much more accustomed to RPGs that came from Japan, though at the time I was really too young to know the difference. All I cared about was playing fun games. Had Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy 4 to play however briefly when I was young, and then Pokemon blew up and everyone wanted to play regardless of what genre it was I feel, considering how many side games were about snapping photos of them or whatnot. There's a very different subgenre even in that I feel where the player character hasn't been too customizable (at least until more recently) but rather it's about building a team out of the many of hundreds of Pokemon you can collect. But then you have wildly different stuff like Earthbound or Megaman Battle Network, or the more western RPGs I did finally play with Fallout 3 or Oblivion or Mass Effect that all focus on very different aspects and have varying levels of freedom. I find myself being more drawn to battle based stats and having a good story that requires a certain amount of set characterization, but whenever I do get that craving for role playing my own character and having consequences to my own actions, games like New Vegas or Outer Worlds are a welcome alternative.
Having thought a bit more, I'm reminded I wanted to mention a few more that seem really exceptional games that wouldn't seem at a glance they really fit the bill, but at the same time don't think they'd exactly fit any other genre better. The Shenmue series has a lot of its stuff set in stone, and your only choices often boil down to simply training your specific moves or increasing minor stats, and all that's left is being left to progress the story - but I feel how that is often handled lends itself well to things like time management and being very open ended about how you investigate exactly how to progress. Kingdom Come: Deliverance is very different but I feel comes from a similar angle as to presenting you with a very defined character, but lets you make very organic decisions about what to wear, when and how you train, and with far more deliberate combat than many games offer at all.
In addition to multiple endings STALKER also has quests, shops, inventory, persistent open world, random encounters, weapons and armor with stats and resistances, etc. If it were fantasy-themed, nobody would think twice about calling it an RPG.
Design needs goals and constraints. Seems like your primary goal when making RPGs is to give players meaningful choices. Constraints, such as setting and consequences, make choices meaningful. Since the main goal is fixed when making an RPG it makes complete sense for you to start with constraints in your design process; setting influences the coherence, meaning, and impact of choices, so it makes sense to start there. Story to me is just another aspect of setting, as it describes what is happening around and to the character, further constraining your options while at the same time giving more meaning to character choices (by introducing specific potential motivations). Finally, game mechanics define the ways that a character can interact with their world, so it makes a lot of sense to focus on that last in an RPG.
My understanding is that it's: 1) Has a character development using a system (with things like experience and skillpoints). If it does have it, but doesn't have the elements below, then it's a game with RPG elements (for example an FPS where you improve your character is an FPS with RPG elements, an adventure game with developing character with stats is an adventure game with RPG elements ETC 2) It's (mostly) an open-world game. You're expected to travel around an open area. If it's linear and progressing like something like Shadowrun Returns, then it's an RPG lite. 3) The game systems exist to contextualise the plot, rather than vice-versa. For example, an FPS is still an FPS if it has the same mechanics, regadless if it's mages shooting dragons with wands or modern military soldiers shooting aliens with guns; but even in a purely action game it matters to the player what the story is because it contextualises the plot. In an RPG the main draw is the plot; the systems exist to contextualise the player's existence in the world, but the point really is to go through a story (in your own way), rather than defeat all the baddies using systems. I actually convinced a single person that it's a good definition, so clearly it has something going for it
I completely agree. And I also have recently discussed (more like argued, really) what makes an RPG, an RPG. I came up with a definition: It's an art medium (usually a Video game) that has underlying system that inspired directly from Table Top RPG and how it govern your gameplay. Nowadays, "RPG" is a catch all term, any game that has floaty damage number are free to stamp their game with "RPG" tag. Especially when unique genrel like Immersive Sim make player behave like they're playing RPG.
Thanks for your thoughts. Pretty much what I'd define an RPG as as well. Though honestly it doesn't bother me as much unless I'm looking for (i.e. trying to buy) a game that have elements I like. A game has to be something I enjoy playing for me to like it, and the games I've enjoyed tend to have certain elements. RPG games tend to have elements that I like. So it really, really frustrates me when a game tries to sell itself as an "RPG" when, for example, it's basically a rouge-like deckbuilder just with some XP and leveling. If you're looking for a deckbuilder or a rouge-like, that's fine. However, if the game bills itself as something else just to get eyeballs on it, or because they have a hint of those "elements", then that's when it really, really ticks me off.
@@mryodak Originally, I think it was (and in my example, it is used this way), but nowadays it refers to a set of game mechanics, so other game genres can have rouge-like elements too.
I like the idea of "What is an RPG?" having multiple answers. Whether it's through dialogue choices, combat, stat building and character creation, or exploration, the most interesting RPGs I've played balance giving the player options to shape their own experience with the game and reacting to their agency. When that sort of back and forth between choice and consequence happens in compelling ways, even if the story doesn't have dramatic branches in how it unfolds I still walk away with the impression that it was malleable in some way.
Hey Tim I asked it before but I guess you didn't see it? What are the biggest exceptions you had in your carrer? Like a skill that had a mechanic that was so against early design decision that it was an exception. Tutorials are usually one huge exception for instance maybe you character holds a weapon for the entire game but just on the tutorial you have them not holding a weapon.
The most insane version of the argument I have heard boiled down to 'roleplaying requires dicerolls' and 'real time gameplay is invalid'. It's so random and arbitrary I couldn't even figure out their reasoning...but neither could they.
Most important thing in an RPG for me is that how much can you act in the game, it's supposed to be an role playing game after all. I don't like games that has like 10 dialogue choices but all of them are just another way of saying "yes". I like RPG games with character creator and has multiple endings as you have mentioned, but if the game doesn't let me act the way I want to, I loose interest and stop playing that game.
Great video, Tim. Can you elaborate on how much you think Outer Worlds 1 is an RPG and how much time/money you had to realize that potential? And how much of an RPG is outer worlds 1 is comparatively to Outer Worlds 2? I hope you can answer :)
What do you think levels abstractly represent in rpgs? I thought of levels as the abstraction of experience that a character has for the scenario of the RPG. So to me it doesn't seem strange to gate a perk by level, and if players get a perk every other level is there really a reason to gate things behind 3 perks instead of saying 'you must be level 8 for this perk'? I admit it does feel different, but why do you think it feels better and improves the 'rpg-ness' of a game?
I had this discussion a bunch of times. One example would be about the Soulslike subgenre who everyone refers to as an rpg, I've advocated that these are action games with optional rpg elements, which fits the conclusion here. My reasoning for this is that you don't have to use any rpg element to play and win the game but you have to play it as an action game to do so. I'm glad that Miyazaki recently said in an interview they internally don't say Soulslikes (or rpg for that matter) but third person action games. And with action and combat it's rather easy to differentiate the two genres or playstyles, is it the character's abilities that decide the outcome or the player's abilities? Is it about timing the right strikes, evades, parries ect. at the right moment? That's the sign that it's an action game. The cringe line "git gud" you often hear among Soulslike fans actually shows that even if they say these are rpgs, they know they aren't, if they were the character had to git gud not the player.
I've been finding that the best way to define videogame genres is to understand the contrast that spawned them. It's very hard to define exactly what an adventure game is, but when you understand that the genre spawned in contrast to action-driven arcade games it becomes much clearer how adventure games are focused on a story-driven campaign rather than gameplay-driven experience. And in the same way RPGs were spawned in contrast to adventure games. Unlike adventure games which are story-driven and linear, RPGs are built around systems and mechanics focused on player choice and freedom. Going into the nitty-gritty of specific systems and features makes everything too muddy since everyone is mixing and matching everything these days, but understanding the core philosophy of what made the genre stand out as something different to begin with makes it much easier to understand what genre most games are.
I find it interesting that character progression seemed to be a given with your criteria. IMHO character progression is what defines an RPG, and the more the game relies on that progression in its gameplay systems the more RPGer it is (I may have a bias towards ludology over narratology 🤓). Most conventional JRPGs may not have narrative choices etc., but game progression is almost always gated by character progression. Character progression, skills, levels, gear, whatever, is what I think a lot of people mean by RPG "elements".
I feel like a definition of what an rpg is that labels most final fantasy games as mostly if not entirely not rpgs is a bit flawed in its analysis of what makes an rpg an rpg, but very good and informative video as always!
Explain why please. Because I love FF games but have never felt they were RPGs. They are narrative driven strategy adventure games to me. Also, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely interested in why these games are considered RPGs.
@@GeezNutz I mean, that's what they call themselves, first off. But also for sure there's a difference between what Japan and the west considers an rpg, with most self described rpgs in Japan being extremely linear, and even sometimes not having much character customization. But, both western and Japanese rpgs come from the same tradition, namely ttrpgs. And while in ttrpgs the nonlinearity and customization are big aspects, the linear aspects are also just as important imo. For every moment in a DnD campaign where one of the players goes off the beaten path and writes their own story there's another moment where a big scripted event plays out exactly how the dm planned it to. People will malign "railroading" in their campaigns but in my experience a lot of the best moments from ttrpgs came from very linear highly curated story beats. So in that sense I feel like claiming that rpgs are all about player choice is only really half the story, since what everyone claims is their predecessor has elements of both nonlinearity and linearity within it. I think it is a "when does a heap become a pile" situation like Tim says, where there's no solid answer of "this is an RPG and that isn't", it's a spectrum. But my "checklist" as Tim put it would be twice as long probably, and includes elements of nonlinearity too. Stuff like big scripted story events, stats and stat progression, and of course party building since those are all things that are not only in the more linear rpgs that Tim didn't account for in his checklist, but those are all foundational ideas in ttrpgs too. Honestly I'm curious about your view of the matter too since I've never really understood the people who don't consider games like Final Fantasy or Shin Megami Tensei rpgs, Because Tim's list says that Zelda 2 is more of an rpg than Final Fantasy X is which doesn't make any sense to me. Like if you asked me to think of the most rpg rpg I'd think of Final Fantasy X, but some people don't think it's an RPG at all which is very interesting. And of course this isn't even getting into all the subgenres too. I suppose I'm fine with giving such a wide definition of rpgs because we have so many sub categories. Srpgs, Arpgs, Crpgs, Dungeon Crawlers, etc. are all a lot more specific as to what constitutes them so the larger umbrella term of "RPG" being so wide and vague is fine with me.
The early Final fantasys come very close, like if you took the first game, add 2s leveling system and made the order of the elemental fiends optional and maybe put in consequences for not doing the side quests then it would be like a western rpg with minimal impact on the game itself
This is something a friend of mine has been working on for ages. The reason he took so long to figure everything out, was because the issues are symptoms of far more fundamental problems, mainly caused by academia, in regards to language and its greater context. (He started with RPG's, then expanded to games in general, then included art/puzzles/competitions (and work/play, toy/tool), then the rules of the English language, then language itself, communication etc. all the way down to the basic nature and existence of human 'content'.) In short, this is actually a massive rabbit hole to fall down if you know what to look for, like my friend did. Unfortunately, he seems to be having trouble getting to talk to anyone relevant IN academia about what he's found, even if you'd think it should be everything they need and want to know. (He likes sending me stuff to proof-read/check etc.) As such, it sounds like he's getting pretty annoyed with everything now :( (I could try and see if he's interested in replying if anyone cares? :P )
Blocking your character direction choices awkwardly just reminds me so much of FFVII remake, if you wanna check an optional path big warning on the screen telling you to turn around.
Going from being known at the time for single-player games to then working on an MMO (Wildstar), what were some things that challenged your design philosophy, or assumptions you might have made about designing for multiplayer that turned out to not work, or habits from making single-player games that you had to unlearn, or misconceptions you might have had about what it would be like to make an MMORPG yourself based on your own MMO playing experiences from when you were big into EQ and WoW?
Hi Tim, were you at all involved in the development of Neverwinters Nights 2? Do you think it's possible for Obsidian to remaster that timeless classic?
The reverse pattern of presentation, systems-story-setting, holds up when playing. But before *buying*, players will likely prioritize setting-story-systems, just like the producers will respond to pitches. Interesting distinction.
I'm curious where you think the Final Fantasy games (let's say in particular FF6/FF7 era) fit into this? They don't seem to have any of the characteristics you listed, but I don't know what anyone would call them other than RPGs.
Problem before was that everything was called an RPG so nothing was an RPG. Then Metroidvania came along and now anything that gates certain abilities or tiems based on the story or xyz experience points is called a Metroidvania.
Another Very interesting video, Tim! Would you consider "Until Dawn" and "Detroit: Become Human" (w no customization but Tons of choices and Endings) to be RPGs?
My definition of a roleplaying game is very simple: A roleplaying game is a game in which the outcome of most actions is determined by character skill. (An action (or shooter) game is a game in which the outcome of most actions is determined by player skill).
Speaking of meaningful character creation, I'm interested in your (Tim's/everyone's) thoughts on gender in RPGs. Specifically I mean the choice between playing a male or female character and its impact on gameplay. I've never played a game where this choice had a significant impact on the game's story or system mechanics. Most RPGs seem to be set in fairly egalitarian worlds, which I assume is to allow male and female characters to be able to share the same experience. When every fantasy and sci-fi setting is egalitarian, however, at some point it starts to become a bit unbelievable. But what about a setting similar to our own historical earth, where women rarely had the same opportunities as men to advance in society? How would you design a game where female characters, by the nature of the setting, are excluded from many quests and factions? If the game offered alternative but more difficult/complex routes to complete the story as a woman, you could really make a meaningful comment on the struggles of women in that society. Why do you think we haven't seen more games like this?
I was just going to say this. I started with Ultima on the NES and went on to the Final Fantasy series. In my mind, JRPGs are actual RPGs, and everything he's saying is something else.
@@danielszemborski I would tend that if "JRPG" means anything besides the hyper reductive "it came from Japan" "Western RPG" focuses on the Player's story told through the game where "JRPG" tends to focus on an interconnected story
Have you yourself come to new insights, whether it's on your own games or methods in particular, or games and development in general, from making these videos?
9:55 as an avid game player, consumer,whatever, for me it's STORY, systems, settings. But I play games to relax and be entertained. Also, I don't design games.
I think appearance is important for some people because the extent of which you can personalize the character makes you more likely to get attached to that character, and the game by extension, even if it has no bearing on how the game plays.
From a future biography written by future historians: An Interplay executive had defined an RPG as a ruleset, HP-tracking, and was applauded. Tim swapped the code for the lives-based system within a recent big-hit platforming title to code for an HP-tracking system, and brought it into the office-room with the words, "Here is your RPG."
Gating - I absolutely agree, blatant "You must meet these criteria" gates are just ugly and inelegant, while rational, in-world or in-system immersive gates are expected. Even in our real daily lives we often run into rational gates - my neighbor's door is locked and I can't enter her home unless she invites me. She doesn't have a sign saying "You must be third level to enter" on her door.
hello Tim, I have a quick question. As a developer, considering what you said, how should I label my game if it doesn't have a lot of RPG elements you mentioned, but the RPG genre is still the closest thing that comes to it. I'm asking mainly because people usually want a very straightforward answer, not me explaining it has an element of that or this
@6:01 Schooldays HQ is a visual novel, hence the choices always matter and you end up with 26 endings that are basically good or bad. It lacks the element of character creation and gameplay is non-existent. It is not an RPG because there is no G. @7:32 That is how map boundaries work in Fallout 3 and 4. @8:19 Fallout 4 is not quite that. You need some perks to unlock others.
Never really thought about that before but it occurred to me listening to you, no stats=no rpg. An rpg has to have stats abstracting your character's characteristics (say 3x real fast: ok, go) for randomization tests usually with dice otherwise what you're up to is just doing an improv, ain't it.
I agree with all of the given reasons given for point #1, but I do not agree with (or make distinction between) playing one's own character vs. playing an assigned/pre-generated character. A role is a role, so long as the character's past & personality is sufficiently understandable, they can be roleplayed. Fallout plays just the same using Albert, as it would using my own PC diplomat; they both hail from the same home, know the same people, have the same goals, and use the same tactics. Making one's own PC is a welcome feature, but IMO not a detraction if absent.
It's definitely a continuum. It's an old question, and one of those topics you could go for hours about and still miss things - the RPG genre is probably the one that's most connected to video game history and fantasy literature history, and what you take from it. And even then, the additional aspect of world and cultural divides can alter what an RPG's definition is influenced by. Just look at the divide between CRPGs and JRPGs.
I've just come to think of "RPG" and "roleplaying game" as two different things, with the specific (but hazy) distinction on mechanics vs story. Fallout is a roleplaying game, you play a role and have the opportunity to change the course of the game as it progresses. Elden Ring is an RPG: You've got levels and stats to invest in and you can make builds, but there's no real character (role) that you are slipping into the skin of (playing). A game can be both, but of course a game can be multiple genres.
An RPG is a Rocket-Propelled Grenade. Hope this helps everyone
no, akshually it means "handheld anti-tank grenade launcher" in russian
This was the first comment I saw. Thanks for the chuckle.
A true scholar.
Great minds think alike.
It's somewhat ironic that the English meaning of "RPG" is a hamfisted backronym of the Russian term.
I remember all the discussions about whether we were or were not a true RPG when developing The Witcher games. It returned with every installment :).
It is a tiring discussion, especially with the people who think it's an objective, binary definition....this IS an RPG, this is NOT an RPG...exhausting
@@CainOnGames Exactly
Never understood this. Like, there is distinct genre - "Action-RPG" (which is also kinda continuum, but anyway, it fits better), why not just apply it and move on?
@@nicolasf9772 It's really not that.
@@nicolasf9772outside of marketing why apply it at all? I get that players knowing a rough idea of what the game is before they buy a game. But outside of that I'm not sure what description a game has to do with the enjoyment of it. I know it's a human trait to categorize things but surely the only important thing is if you enjoy playing it.
I really appreciate how your videos give an honest behind the scenes perspective without corporate talk or circular, empty buzz terms. It's refreshing. You're especially good at explaining game mechanics and the valid or perhaps more questionable reasons behind them.
He is a good orator
Gating: I always liked how Gothic handled gating. Almost all of the world was accessible from the start. The only gates where monsters and much higher level NPCs that you would have to fight or avoid. It was a very natural barrier, for most players passing those funnels only when they where ready.
Piranha made a great work of game setting. Gothic 1 and 2, Risen 1, first Elex.
Try applying that logic to a TTRPG and many players will cry that you didn't balance the world (encounters).
Video game linear game progression and main character attitude has a lot to answer for.
@@innui100its about communication. If you explain it to them first and they agree its ok. If you start doing it despite previously having all encounters balanced then of course and they should complain.
YES!!! I was about to leave a comment asking Tim if he's ever played Piranha Bytes' games because I think they follow that philosophy so well
This is one of the many aspects how Outcast paved the way for Gothic.
Perfect example of logical soft gating - Legend of Grimrock 2 had a puzzle to enter the graveyard (an area just off the main central zone), but the only thing a player saw when they got there was a moving stone. The actual puzzle was explained in a set of notes the player found in the Archive, a sub dungeon beyond the sewers which required going like 2 zones in the other direction to get to.
If you knew the solution from a prior playthrough or somehow randomly guessed it you could get in early, despite the enemies being much stronger than a new player is typically equipped to handle, but I appreciated the fact that there was no arbitrary meta requirement like player level to get in.
Great video. Thank you Tim.
A game is an RPG
- Character Creation is a must
- Character Creation Choices must matter. Class, Race, Background, Skills, Birth Sign, Traits. Games must check these and change accordingly during gameplay
- Character Appearance does not matter
- How you act in-game should matter. Game should recognize to your choices
- Story should not be too dependent on player actions or character attributes
- Story has to be non linear. Go and do whatever you want. Tim prefers player driven stories and does not like story driven games.
- Multiple Endings should be expected based on what the player has been doing in game
- World has to be big enough to support exploration and player choice. Lots of side quests. A big world is important.
3:42 YES! Not only to be a good character, but also an evil one. Which I think a lot of modern games are afraid of. Also of making actions have consequences.
While I sort of understand the lack of many evil options (due to coding taking time) I don't really like the lack of consequences.
There's a lot of games where thievery could land you in jail and even if the game time skipped to you getting out you could've easily failed the main quest (most of them have some sort of urgency if not in code then in writing).
And if the game stopped making autosaves (assuming it has those) or informed the player that "while you rotted away in jail the Dark Lord won" upon release from the jail to let the player know not to overwrite previous saves there would be no harm in that.
Yeah it takes extra effort to make options good vs evil, faction vs faction, or just solving quests in different ways or helping different people by doing a quest one way or another. Effort that is needed to make a game greater. We should not encourage developers and studios to do less. I am very unimpressed by the options in pretty much all new games. Just awful how they lack options.
@@fredrik3880 Oh I totally agree, having those options does make the game greater, as long as they are done to the same standard. From what I've heard BG3 "evil" run has basically no content compared to the goody-two-shoes run (and neutral run has essentially 0 content, you must choose).
It's not really an "evil" run but Witcher 2 still has the most insane branch I've ever played and that must've been a lot of effort for them.
@@Syaniiti bg 3 was good compared to new games but that is a low bar indeed. Bg 2 is better and it is like 20 years older. And made by fewer people with a lower budget. Lol a sad state of affairs indeed.
@@fredrik3880 I count BG3 among new games since it came out relatively recently (at least in my mind), I just found combat in that game to be so boring and the UI so cumbersome I never bothered to find out for sure how much evil playthrough content there was. Not to mention the amount of problems with the plot, the terrible companions and other issues I have with that game.
Wrath of the RIghteous is the newest crpg I've played that I'd say was really good.
My favourite pseudo/borderline RPG is Crusader Kings 3. Certainly a strategy game for the most part, but it does a very good job at making you feel like the character through it's engaging events and systems. Difficult to get into and doesn't have a story in the traditional sense but after a while you can get some really engaging character narratives out of it. I'd recommend giving it a go. The only negative is it's dlc is annoying. It feels like the game is missing parts without them.
It definitely "feels" like an RPG when I play it. I don't play many games without RPG "elements", and CK3 is definitely my favourite strategy game, mainly because of how relatively RPG-like it is compared to other games in the grand strategy genre.
Hey Tim. Can you tell us about times you changed your mind, and or how your design or leadership philosophy has changed over time.
One of my friends recently decided to try and get into RPG games. He's avoided them his whole life because he said he found them boring as a kid, and as an adult he's just stuck to genres he knows he likes. I love RPG's and so he asked me for some recommendations, but he said the 2 rules to any games I suggest are that they can't be turn based or sci-fi themed. As many of you know, this excludes a lot of games, especially the earliest RPGs because of the "no turn based" rule. It made me re-evaluate what I actually consider to be an RPG game. I think your definitions are great, and I do agree with them! It's just a pity my pal will never get to experience DragonQuest or Mass Effect because of his 2 rules. Oh well, each to their own I suppose :P
It's pretty funny because there was a time I also didn't like turn based games. I used to only play modern games, but then in 2021 i decided to play jrpgs because i got bored of modern games. (It was also the only genre I had never played) I had to get used to the turn based system, but I eventually got it. I don’t watch anime, but I quite enjoy jrpgs now. I've become such a fan of jrpgs, I even have a character from that genre as my profile picture.
Yea and also miss out on Kotor. Tell your friend to try the elder scrolls, dragons dogma, or Baldur's gate.
Tim, I love your videos and insight. Thank you for doing these (and for everything you’ve done for gaming)!
An RPG is an experience which allows the player to create or adopt a character who can make choices and those choices dramatically affect the character, the world they're in and the people that inhabit it. What gets included alongside that whether it be setting, main story, combat, companions, exploration, dungeons, puzzles, quests etc should only be extensions of this one main pillar (of eternity).
I pretty much agree with this definition. It’s all about the level of *ROLE-PLAYING* the game supports.
The reason I find this discussion so exhausting is because people are often dishonest with their arguments. You’ve got people trying to arbitrarily gatekeep a genre they like, then other people who are trying to exploit the prestige of that genre to claim any old game with numbers and levels is an RPG.
Is Diablo an RPG?
13:00-13:30 Drawing "a hard line in the sand about 'this is a RPG and 'this isn't' is doomed to fail.... Until you're not a RPG anymore." ;) (Couldn't resist.)
I agree regarding the continuum from the creative viewpoint and think the much needed public "debate" could be far healthier than it is. There are, indeed, many different kinds of RPGs: Choice and Consequence RPGs, e.g. those Tim most often has worked on in which the player creates their own character and makes choices that can subtly and, even, drastically change the game world itself; Prewritten Protagonist RPGs in which the player steps into the role of a preconceived/prewritten character the very same as an actor steps into a preconceived role, i.e. the Red Dead series, and can possibly "nudge" the character one way or another to get a slightly different ending for the character, but their actions have no impact on the larger game world itself that is not also prewritten; etc.; and even hybrid RPGs in which players step into a preconceived/prewritten role, but nonetheless are often presented with choices and consequences that affect the game world, i.e. The Witcher 3.
On the subject from a creative standpoint, I would contend only that we lack the lexicon to sufficiently differentiate games that fall along this continuum to avoid confusion and misleading marketing. What I believe has poisoned the debate is the "game must be all things to all people" mindset prompted by notions, e.g. "we have to pull the RPG crowd into our action game" or "we have to pull more action game afficionados into our RPG"...so we can sell more copies.
His statement "until you're not an RPG anymore" doesn't refute the previous statement about there being no hard line. There is no hard line between day and night, but that doesn't change the fact that there are large spans of time in which it is objectively correct to say "it is (or isn't) day (or night)."
@@lrinfi It's not much of a joke. You intentionally tried to make it look as though he contradicted the _main thesis_ of his video, when he clearly hadn't. That just feels disrespectful. I guarantee he was annoyed if he read it. It just reads like you genuinely missed the point, or that you're being a rude troll, not like something genuinely funny. But sure, criticize _me_ instead of engaging in self-reflection.
@@DavidCDrake Here lies the (amusing) "contradiction": Tim says *you* cannot draw a hard line in the sand and say a game is a RPG or not a RPG, but he can and he can because he's doing so subjectively. In fact, we can all do so subjectively without refutation. Obviously, we cannot do so *objectively* without refutation.
Some (or none) may be interested to know this is why Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy proposed that the objective/subjective dichotomy, illusory though it is, is insufficient grounds from which to converse about the orientation and trajectory of society and/or humanity itself. Subject and object are themselves grammatical constructs and society (as I'm sure most everyone is aware by now) has no shared orientation or trajectory, atm. In fact, most everyone is attempting to reify their inner world -- their subjective -- as THE (singular) outer world we all must live in and looking upon everyone else's as invalid from their objective view-point.
This is dualistic perception and thinking par excellence and proof positive (to me, at least) of Iain McGilchrist's argument, for example, that ours is a predominately "left brain hemisphere" culture. In our purely "spatial" manner of perception and thinking, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy suggests we are overlooking the role of time, aspects of which he dubbed the "prejective" and "trajective". From the Stanford Encylopedia entry summarizing Rosenstock's life and work: "[H]e argues that dialectical thought is triadic, but anything that really happens and makes itself manifest, i.e. appears (erscheint), is at least quadrilateral. It must be something in space *and* time, and hence conform to the inner/outerness or subjective/objective matrix of space, as well as the trajective and prejective-ness of time."
"Now I a fourfold vision see
And a fourfold vision is given to me
Tis fourfold in my supreme delight
And three fold in soft Beulahs night
And twofold Always. May God us keep
From Single vision & Newtons sleep.” - William Blake
@@lrinfi Ah, so it was _not_ just a joke. Thank you for the erudite response. I still think you're somewhat misinterpreting the "hard line" remark, but I've already belabored this topic (and am probably being a bit too "spicy" today), so I'll just say I do respect much of the perspective you're sharing. Cheers!
This was the most diplomatic way you could have approached this. Personally I agree on all points, great video!
This was a good video, Tim. You made me rethink some things. Thank you.
Appreciate you posting so much great content, love it.
Had the pleasure of playing Arcanum for the first time thanks to these videos. Playing a sickly mage with 14 int and 14 con that kills things with two hits of Harm but passes out nearly every combat encounter. No other game has let me do that. Big fan of that stuff.
YES! I've been waiting for you to talk about this. I thought this would be too vague of a topic for you to try to dive into.
Wow, this is perfect timing. For the past couple years I've been playing a lot of looter shooter style ARPGs, but I've been interested in adding more traditional style RPGs, so I'm also playing Mass Effect. So my mind has been a lot on the question of what what differentiates RPGs from other styles of games. Thank you for covering this!
Mass Effect is good, but I wouldn't exactly call it a traditional RPG. Baldur's Gate II and Planescape: Torment are 'traditional' RPGs. Mass Effect is an Action RPG.
As I'm drinking my morning coffee, an example of a well written character (or group of characters) being part of an RPG, is This War of Mine. While not having the traditionally associated dice rolls or turned based combat, or really much combat at all, it has all the roleplaying aspects of being in a war torn country as a civilian, and certainly made me put myself into the shoes of my group. @Timothy Cain, it's an excellent game if you've not played it.
correct me if I'm wrong, but in there you play their roles, not your role
it doesn't allow for the building of a custom character, right?
@@giampaolomannucci8281 There are custom scenarios where you can loosely create characters from a dozen or so backgrounds. And there aren't a lot of opportunities for either the custom or standard characters to express themselves. The choices you get to make are more about survival vs empathy and less about individual expression.
That said, when you're playing an old man with his wife sick and hungry at home and you're watching a soldier assault a woman in broad daylight... what do you do?
@@giampaolomannucci8281 no you're absolutely right, I started thinking about what you said in your group V single player comment, and I wanted to use that as an example. While you don't control a single individual, or even craft a character, the quality of the writing of the preset characters is so strong that you can make it work, Mentally playing as those preset characters, so I consider it an RPG, even though you have a little less agency?
This reminds of the "what is an anime?" discussion. Everyone is very polarised and sidetracked by extreme examples.
Rpg, just like anime, i think exist on a gradient of characteristics that are associated with them but not always present, thus making them more or less of what they are.
There a lot of RPG elements, but after thinking for some time about the rpg games that i played, i think the characteristics that sum up RPG genre are:
1. Presence of a character progression. Via gear and/or lvl up system.
2. Presence of story choices, that make you want to save a game before you pick anything.
I wish a came up a third one, but I can't think anything yet.
If a game has those characteristics together, its an rpg, and not a game with rpg elements.
Take out progression and you ll have a visual novel or a game movie.
Take out story choices and you'll get action rpgs, slashers and souls-likes which focus more on combat and progression.
These characteristics also describe immersive sims, but in IS case, i think first person perspective is a must, which is not a requirement for RPGs. So it basically means, that every IS is an RPG, but not every RPG is an IS.
That's just my opinion from the last 3-5 rpgs i played lately.
Hey Tim! I've been creating some subtitles for your videos (mostly for my personal notes) as they are such a great treasure trove regarding game design (e.g. how you've made conversation variations based on class and race for Arcanum), I would love to get in touch with you to share what I've done already.
An RPG is a game that emphasises the ability to make choices, and then having to live with those respective choices.
This can be either via the narrative, the systems, or more ideally, a mix of both.
As long as you emphasise choice and consequence sufficiently, then should you want it, you have earned the moniker.
When games tout "RPG Elements", they just mean they've incorporated these systems, but stripped them of their purpose in facilitating choice and consequence.
A narrative that emphasises player choice can have multiple forms.
For some this consists of a non-linear structure where you pursue vague goals through different means, with your means having consequences
For others there's more of a linear scenario, but one with branching paths to accommodate the player's choices (e.g. major points of The Witcher 2).
Also note, that being able to experience the exact same things, the exact same way, but in a different order, is not a form of player choice.
For systems this usually manifests most openly as experience levels, which in turn net you points, which you invest in stats, skills, and abilities.
And these investments should allow the player to approach situations in the world (even if only combat) in new and different ways.
Despite their extreme linearity, this is the primary way in which JRPGs qualify for the label; by emphasising player choice in character builds and system.
In emphasising both of these elements, you get to the purest and most distilled form of an RPG:
A fully simulated world, where you exist as a character of the world, and you exert your influence upon the world.
The world and its characters must of course react and respond to you appropriately.
Technology isn't quite there, but that is RPG ideal: a simulationist's wet dream.
I do know this definition does allow few oddities.
For example, Visual Novels will likely qualify as RPGs - but if they've emphasised choices and consequences to that degree, I think they've earned it.
It also means most MMORPGs barely qualify - but that's true and I don't blame them; in this environment "bad choices = griefing".
It probably disqualifies a lot of JRPGs too.
I have also derived a basic litmus test for whether something is an RPG or not:
Let 2 people start from the same baseline, and enjoy the game for however long,
Should they then end up with what is fundamentally the same characters and world state, then it's not an RPG.
Hi Timothy, thank you so much for your great videos. You motivate and inspire me a lot. Could you make a video on how to communicate better with players through game design? Some players don’t understand certain features and think they are bugs.
Thanks for this content! Have a great weekend Tim! vibes!
another great listen. love ya, Tim!
Thank you Tim, this was an important video.
To me it’s: “This feels/does not feel like an RPG”, but at the core of that is “do I get to make character interaction choices that feels like they matter to the shape of the outcome”.
They might not, but if they feel like it, it’s still ok for me.
There are tons of other parameters but for me that’s a huge indicator for whether it will “feel” like an RPG to me.
Funnily enough that also means that games that do hidden gotchas to decisions feel less like RPGs to me, because I don’t feel like I got to make a decision that mattered since I had no way of guessing at the outcome.
I've been thinking about this a lot and the most concise coherent definition I can come up with is any game where you navigate a menu to execute combat commands
You really are a treasure Mr. Cain.
It's a good checklist.
Only thing I would add and it often seems like you actually don't need to mention it but I still think it's helpful in any discussion about what constitutes an RPG in video game form:
The player character skills are what matter, not the players.
Unless it's an Action RPG of course, which adds in player skill. (For example such as aiming a weapon, or dodging attacks in real-time)
I love the character creators all my favorite games have them.
Thanks for the vid. Always great.
As a player, I enjoy when we’re allowed to think for ourselves and find unmentioned invisible choices. I like when it feels like I found some new way, even if it’s programmed in, it feels natural because there was no indication of it being possible. That really makes me feel like I’m playing my own way. Like give me 2-3 obvious choices, but give me other options that I may not have thought of the first or second play through. Like if my options are to politely ask for something, or kill and take it, but the character also really likes something. Let there be a hidden choice to trade them the item(s) they like/want for what I want. Or let me talk to someone else to do my dirty work, so that doesn’t directly reflect on me to the other NPC’s. I like options and finding new ways to things that make me feel intelligent for interacting with the medium in that way and being rewarded for it.
This is always a funny discussion. RPGs have always been rather hard to actually define and part of why is simply due the sheer influence RPGs have had on so many other games over decades
Hey Timn i have a question you can do a video on.
What toys did you play with growing up?
I read a book called mad minutes of Vietnam. In it the author talks about the toys he palyed with growing up. Like toy soilders , ships made out of cardboard and the nighboord kids would come together and host large toy battles.
What type of toys did you play with growing up?
What were some of your favorite toys?
When you played with friends what did you play/do.
Tim you were talking about character creation, so I want to know how hard would it be to consider a character beautiful or ugly based on the geometric settings you gave your character on creation, and have this impact dialogue options similar to other stats. Like seduction and what not.
Hi Tim, could you please talk about mentorship from the perspective of a programmer? What makes a good mentor? Is mentorship something that employers value? What are the benefits and drawbacks of being a mentor?
I agree, thinking rpgs as an continuum work better.
I think that you can have different types of rpgs with difference emphasis or focus, that maybe feature some aspects, from character creation to dialogue trees. The reason is that I fear that a rigid definition might end up excluding a lot of the crpg history and evolution (because old game maybe not able to do x or Y, but does not mean they were not trying), and sometimes even future.
Also, while I start mostly playing more classic western crpgs, I later moved a bit more toward jrpgs and specially, Wizardry inspired dungeon crawlers (which there is a lot in Japan), which make me think a lot about the genre.
Judging by the fact that a lot of them don't check many of these points, I'm wondering if there are any JRPGs that you enjoy. I really like a lot of both western and eastern RPGs, but usually for different reasons. Also, how often do CRPG developers look at what Japan does for inspiration?
Speaking personally as an RPG fan that has never really been able to get into JRPGs (unless you count FromSoft games), I'm just now realising one of the reasons they've never appealed much to me. I tried to give JPRGs another chance a while ago, and I put about 30-40 hours into Persona 5. There were aspects of it I liked, but the No. 1 frustration I had with the game was that I didn't really feel like I was in control of my character. I couldn't customise him except for the combat skills, I couldn't make any meaningful dialogue choices, and so on. Whatever it is that I truly love about (Western) RPGs, which is something to do with player freedom and the consequences of your choices, most JRPGs seem to be lacking specifically on those aspects.
I'd be interested to hear from a JRPG fan what they enjoy about those games and whether the "role-playing" is just less important to them or if they understand the meaning of "RPG" differently from me.
The overlap is not strong. JRPGs came out of very early CRPGs like Ultima and especially Wizardry. So they started out as a copy of a copy, all roads bent, then diverged quite heavily from there.
The only influence from a JRPG back on-to a CRPG I'm aware of is FFVII on Planescape: Tormen'ts FMV spell cutscenes.
@@slynt_ Keeping in mind that JRPGs definitely have their own spectrum of elements like Tim was talking about (Hell, even within the Final Fantasy series you have entries like 1 and 3 with much more direct Wizardry and Ultima heritage, some that are more story based while keeping player guided character progression and turned based combat as focuses , and some that are essentially action-adventure games) it's hard to say exactly what I enjoy about the genre. In many games, I enjoy the sense of going on an adventure with well written characters (to a similar way that I've enjoyed companions in Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, New Vegas, etc.) while some are more about mechanics like resource management, exploration and combat tactics. I'll grant you that there isn't a lot of actual "role playing" in these games and the terminology is kind of vestigial from the games that originally influenced them. I just grew up playing them and find them fun in their own way.
@@killthefoozle I've seen people from Obsidian praise Chrono Trigger and I think I've heard that Final Fantasy was an influence on Bioware. I agree that the genres have branched out from a common root, but there are enough mechanics shared between the two or ideas that aren't antithetical to the other's design philosophy that I could see Japanese RPGs having an influence on the West and vice versa.
@@slynt_
This is funny because as far as JRPGs go the Persona series probably has more "role playing" than most by virtue of the social/life sim elements being completely up to the player's choices and being a central part of the games' progression. Ultimately everyone will play through the same story and see the same ending but the characters and activities they engaged with along the way will differ.
3:07 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 YES! you should see your face right now! So relatable.
Hey Tim, if you haven’t already, I would love to hear your thoughts on dealing with softlocking in game design
Great list. I would also add that for me there is more emphasis on your character skill and not player skill in RPGs. For example, no matter how good you are as a player, you should not be able to picklock everything if your character does not invest in the skill.
Hey Tim thank you very much for your wonderful channel and your insights in the gaming industry. Keep up the good work. My quest is what do you think about toxicity, where does it come from (is it caused by the games or is it caused by lack of moderation) and how can it be solved? Thanks.
Great video! And I agree about not getting too hung up on genres. While they are good for people trying to find games they might like, I don't think it does anyone good to argue such details when potential buyers can simply look at the specific features any given game has to offer. I often find discourse these days to be more about claiming credit for something inane not much unlike sports fans who act like they are on the team themselves...one example I've seen is stuff about Fromsoft's games in particular, whether they are what they call JRPGs specifically, or RPGs at all, etc. Another is the Yakuza series which has recently shifted to its original Japanese title Like A Dragon, which has had a beat em up action style of gameplay up until a turn based system was at first shown off as an April fools joke but quickly became popular enough for the developers to try at sincerely. I'd always seen the series as inherently RPG-esque with all its focus on side content and stats and item management, etc., but some seemed to view it as some betrayal as a complete shift in genre. So I guess it's something to be wary of if working on a long running series.
Metroid Prime is not really related in any sense but I feel is important when talking about these kinds of definitions. Nintendo (or was it Retro?) had said something along the lines of it being a First Person Adventure rather than an FPS, which at the time had worried some who had been used to the series up to that point being a side scrolling adventure game. It was still very different in pacing but I think most would say kept the overall sense of exploration as well as how thrilling the combat could be. Not sticking too close to expectations for some of these ideas FPS games typically had I feel paved the way for many other games such as Bioshock or even the newer Fallout games to be more palatable for a wider audience.
Personally, I've been much more accustomed to RPGs that came from Japan, though at the time I was really too young to know the difference. All I cared about was playing fun games. Had Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy 4 to play however briefly when I was young, and then Pokemon blew up and everyone wanted to play regardless of what genre it was I feel, considering how many side games were about snapping photos of them or whatnot. There's a very different subgenre even in that I feel where the player character hasn't been too customizable (at least until more recently) but rather it's about building a team out of the many of hundreds of Pokemon you can collect. But then you have wildly different stuff like Earthbound or Megaman Battle Network, or the more western RPGs I did finally play with Fallout 3 or Oblivion or Mass Effect that all focus on very different aspects and have varying levels of freedom. I find myself being more drawn to battle based stats and having a good story that requires a certain amount of set characterization, but whenever I do get that craving for role playing my own character and having consequences to my own actions, games like New Vegas or Outer Worlds are a welcome alternative.
Having thought a bit more, I'm reminded I wanted to mention a few more that seem really exceptional games that wouldn't seem at a glance they really fit the bill, but at the same time don't think they'd exactly fit any other genre better. The Shenmue series has a lot of its stuff set in stone, and your only choices often boil down to simply training your specific moves or increasing minor stats, and all that's left is being left to progress the story - but I feel how that is often handled lends itself well to things like time management and being very open ended about how you investigate exactly how to progress. Kingdom Come: Deliverance is very different but I feel comes from a similar angle as to presenting you with a very defined character, but lets you make very organic decisions about what to wear, when and how you train, and with far more deliberate combat than many games offer at all.
Thanks for talking about gating!
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl has 7 different endings depending on very couple minor decisions that you make, does that make it an RPG game?
In addition to multiple endings STALKER also has quests, shops, inventory, persistent open world, random encounters, weapons and armor with stats and resistances, etc. If it were fantasy-themed, nobody would think twice about calling it an RPG.
Design needs goals and constraints. Seems like your primary goal when making RPGs is to give players meaningful choices. Constraints, such as setting and consequences, make choices meaningful. Since the main goal is fixed when making an RPG it makes complete sense for you to start with constraints in your design process; setting influences the coherence, meaning, and impact of choices, so it makes sense to start there. Story to me is just another aspect of setting, as it describes what is happening around and to the character, further constraining your options while at the same time giving more meaning to character choices (by introducing specific potential motivations). Finally, game mechanics define the ways that a character can interact with their world, so it makes a lot of sense to focus on that last in an RPG.
Hey Tim, I'd love to hear you talk about Final Fantasy 7, or Japanese RPGs more broadly.
My understanding is that it's:
1) Has a character development using a system (with things like experience and skillpoints). If it does have it, but doesn't have the elements below, then it's a game with RPG elements (for example an FPS where you improve your character is an FPS with RPG elements, an adventure game with developing character with stats is an adventure game with RPG elements ETC
2) It's (mostly) an open-world game. You're expected to travel around an open area. If it's linear and progressing like something like Shadowrun Returns, then it's an RPG lite.
3) The game systems exist to contextualise the plot, rather than vice-versa. For example, an FPS is still an FPS if it has the same mechanics, regadless if it's mages shooting dragons with wands or modern military soldiers shooting aliens with guns; but even in a purely action game it matters to the player what the story is because it contextualises the plot. In an RPG the main draw is the plot; the systems exist to contextualise the player's existence in the world, but the point really is to go through a story (in your own way), rather than defeat all the baddies using systems.
I actually convinced a single person that it's a good definition, so clearly it has something going for it
I completely agree. And I also have recently discussed (more like argued, really) what makes an RPG, an RPG.
I came up with a definition: It's an art medium (usually a Video game) that has underlying system that inspired directly from Table Top RPG and how it govern your gameplay.
Nowadays, "RPG" is a catch all term, any game that has floaty damage number are free to stamp their game with "RPG" tag. Especially when unique genrel like Immersive Sim make player behave like they're playing RPG.
Thanks for your thoughts. Pretty much what I'd define an RPG as as well.
Though honestly it doesn't bother me as much unless I'm looking for (i.e. trying to buy) a game that have elements I like. A game has to be something I enjoy playing for me to like it, and the games I've enjoyed tend to have certain elements. RPG games tend to have elements that I like. So it really, really frustrates me when a game tries to sell itself as an "RPG" when, for example, it's basically a rouge-like deckbuilder just with some XP and leveling. If you're looking for a deckbuilder or a rouge-like, that's fine. However, if the game bills itself as something else just to get eyeballs on it, or because they have a hint of those "elements", then that's when it really, really ticks me off.
Roguelike is a style of an rpg?
@@mryodak Originally, I think it was (and in my example, it is used this way), but nowadays it refers to a set of game mechanics, so other game genres can have rouge-like elements too.
Can you comment on how much more work a non-linear storyline adds to the development process?
I like the idea of "What is an RPG?" having multiple answers. Whether it's through dialogue choices, combat, stat building and character creation, or exploration, the most interesting RPGs I've played balance giving the player options to shape their own experience with the game and reacting to their agency. When that sort of back and forth between choice and consequence happens in compelling ways, even if the story doesn't have dramatic branches in how it unfolds I still walk away with the impression that it was malleable in some way.
Pillars of Eternity is a great example of what youre talking about. I love that game.
Hey Tim I asked it before but I guess you didn't see it?
What are the biggest exceptions you had in your carrer? Like a skill that had a mechanic that was so against early design decision that it was an exception. Tutorials are usually one huge exception for instance maybe you character holds a weapon for the entire game but just on the tutorial you have them not holding a weapon.
Dear stan
The most insane version of the argument I have heard boiled down to 'roleplaying requires dicerolls' and 'real time gameplay is invalid'. It's so random and arbitrary I couldn't even figure out their reasoning...but neither could they.
Most important thing in an RPG for me is that how much can you act in the game, it's supposed to be an role playing game after all. I don't like games that has like 10 dialogue choices but all of them are just another way of saying "yes".
I like RPG games with character creator and has multiple endings as you have mentioned, but if the game doesn't let me act the way I want to, I loose interest and stop playing that game.
Great video, Tim. Can you elaborate on how much you think Outer Worlds 1 is an RPG and how much time/money you had to realize that potential? And how much of an RPG is outer worlds 1 is comparatively to Outer Worlds 2? I hope you can answer :)
What do you think levels abstractly represent in rpgs? I thought of levels as the abstraction of experience that a character has for the scenario of the RPG. So to me it doesn't seem strange to gate a perk by level, and if players get a perk every other level is there really a reason to gate things behind 3 perks instead of saying 'you must be level 8 for this perk'? I admit it does feel different, but why do you think it feels better and improves the 'rpg-ness' of a game?
I had this discussion a bunch of times. One example would be about the Soulslike subgenre who everyone refers to as an rpg, I've advocated that these are action games with optional rpg elements, which fits the conclusion here.
My reasoning for this is that you don't have to use any rpg element to play and win the game but you have to play it as an action game to do so.
I'm glad that Miyazaki recently said in an interview they internally don't say Soulslikes (or rpg for that matter) but third person action games.
And with action and combat it's rather easy to differentiate the two genres or playstyles, is it the character's abilities that decide the outcome or the player's abilities? Is it about timing the right strikes, evades, parries ect. at the right moment? That's the sign that it's an action game.
The cringe line "git gud" you often hear among Soulslike fans actually shows that even if they say these are rpgs, they know they aren't, if they were the character had to git gud not the player.
I've been finding that the best way to define videogame genres is to understand the contrast that spawned them. It's very hard to define exactly what an adventure game is, but when you understand that the genre spawned in contrast to action-driven arcade games it becomes much clearer how adventure games are focused on a story-driven campaign rather than gameplay-driven experience. And in the same way RPGs were spawned in contrast to adventure games. Unlike adventure games which are story-driven and linear, RPGs are built around systems and mechanics focused on player choice and freedom.
Going into the nitty-gritty of specific systems and features makes everything too muddy since everyone is mixing and matching everything these days, but understanding the core philosophy of what made the genre stand out as something different to begin with makes it much easier to understand what genre most games are.
I really enjoy your voice. Have you considered narrating a game. I imagine a whimsical persona.
I find it interesting that character progression seemed to be a given with your criteria. IMHO character progression is what defines an RPG, and the more the game relies on that progression in its gameplay systems the more RPGer it is (I may have a bias towards ludology over narratology 🤓). Most conventional JRPGs may not have narrative choices etc., but game progression is almost always gated by character progression.
Character progression, skills, levels, gear, whatever, is what I think a lot of people mean by RPG "elements".
For me it's secondary if not further down the list.
I consider "This war of mine" and "Papers, please" to be more RPG than fallout 4, for example.
@@zhulikkulik Yes, anyone who understands that RPGs are about *role-playing* should see that that's correct.
I feel like a definition of what an rpg is that labels most final fantasy games as mostly if not entirely not rpgs is a bit flawed in its analysis of what makes an rpg an rpg, but very good and informative video as always!
Explain why please. Because I love FF games but have never felt they were RPGs. They are narrative driven strategy adventure games to me. Also, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely interested in why these games are considered RPGs.
@@GeezNutz I mean, that's what they call themselves, first off. But also for sure there's a difference between what Japan and the west considers an rpg, with most self described rpgs in Japan being extremely linear, and even sometimes not having much character customization. But, both western and Japanese rpgs come from the same tradition, namely ttrpgs. And while in ttrpgs the nonlinearity and customization are big aspects, the linear aspects are also just as important imo. For every moment in a DnD campaign where one of the players goes off the beaten path and writes their own story there's another moment where a big scripted event plays out exactly how the dm planned it to. People will malign "railroading" in their campaigns but in my experience a lot of the best moments from ttrpgs came from very linear highly curated story beats. So in that sense I feel like claiming that rpgs are all about player choice is only really half the story, since what everyone claims is their predecessor has elements of both nonlinearity and linearity within it. I think it is a "when does a heap become a pile" situation like Tim says, where there's no solid answer of "this is an RPG and that isn't", it's a spectrum. But my "checklist" as Tim put it would be twice as long probably, and includes elements of nonlinearity too. Stuff like big scripted story events, stats and stat progression, and of course party building since those are all things that are not only in the more linear rpgs that Tim didn't account for in his checklist, but those are all foundational ideas in ttrpgs too.
Honestly I'm curious about your view of the matter too since I've never really understood the people who don't consider games like Final Fantasy or Shin Megami Tensei rpgs, Because Tim's list says that Zelda 2 is more of an rpg than Final Fantasy X is which doesn't make any sense to me. Like if you asked me to think of the most rpg rpg I'd think of Final Fantasy X, but some people don't think it's an RPG at all which is very interesting.
And of course this isn't even getting into all the subgenres too. I suppose I'm fine with giving such a wide definition of rpgs because we have so many sub categories. Srpgs, Arpgs, Crpgs, Dungeon Crawlers, etc. are all a lot more specific as to what constitutes them so the larger umbrella term of "RPG" being so wide and vague is fine with me.
The early Final fantasys come very close, like if you took the first game, add 2s leveling system and made the order of the elemental fiends optional and maybe put in consequences for not doing the side quests then it would be like a western rpg with minimal impact on the game itself
For me Wrestling Empire fits your definition perfectly
This is something a friend of mine has been working on for ages. The reason he took so long to figure everything out, was because the issues are symptoms of far more fundamental problems, mainly caused by academia, in regards to language and its greater context. (He started with RPG's, then expanded to games in general, then included art/puzzles/competitions (and work/play, toy/tool), then the rules of the English language, then language itself, communication etc. all the way down to the basic nature and existence of human 'content'.)
In short, this is actually a massive rabbit hole to fall down if you know what to look for, like my friend did. Unfortunately, he seems to be having trouble getting to talk to anyone relevant IN academia about what he's found, even if you'd think it should be everything they need and want to know. (He likes sending me stuff to proof-read/check etc.) As such, it sounds like he's getting pretty annoyed with everything now :(
(I could try and see if he's interested in replying if anyone cares? :P )
Blocking your character direction choices awkwardly just reminds me so much of FFVII remake, if you wanna check an optional path big warning on the screen telling you to turn around.
Going from being known at the time for single-player games to then working on an MMO (Wildstar), what were some things that challenged your design philosophy, or assumptions you might have made about designing for multiplayer that turned out to not work, or habits from making single-player games that you had to unlearn, or misconceptions you might have had about what it would be like to make an MMORPG yourself based on your own MMO playing experiences from when you were big into EQ and WoW?
I agree with Todd, Madden has RPG elements
Hi Tim, were you at all involved in the development of Neverwinters Nights 2? Do you think it's possible for Obsidian to remaster that timeless classic?
The reverse pattern of presentation, systems-story-setting, holds up when playing. But before *buying*, players will likely prioritize setting-story-systems, just like the producers will respond to pitches. Interesting distinction.
Tim I’d love you’re thoughts on the trailer to the fallout tv show
I'm curious where you think the Final Fantasy games (let's say in particular FF6/FF7 era) fit into this? They don't seem to have any of the characteristics you listed, but I don't know what anyone would call them other than RPGs.
Thoughts on JRPGs and how they fit into this?
Problem before was that everything was called an RPG so nothing was an RPG. Then Metroidvania came along and now anything that gates certain abilities or tiems based on the story or xyz experience points is called a Metroidvania.
Another Very interesting video, Tim! Would you consider "Until Dawn" and "Detroit: Become Human" (w no customization but Tons of choices and Endings) to be RPGs?
Everyone knows the superior definition is Really Phat Gophers. Any other choice is inferior.
My definition of a roleplaying game is very simple: A roleplaying game is a game in which the outcome of most actions is determined by character skill. (An action (or shooter) game is a game in which the outcome of most actions is determined by player skill).
3:00 Dragon's Dogma 1 and 2 (which are more on Action side) do this thing where body proportions (e.g. size, weight) have gameplay effects
Speaking of meaningful character creation, I'm interested in your (Tim's/everyone's) thoughts on gender in RPGs. Specifically I mean the choice between playing a male or female character and its impact on gameplay. I've never played a game where this choice had a significant impact on the game's story or system mechanics. Most RPGs seem to be set in fairly egalitarian worlds, which I assume is to allow male and female characters to be able to share the same experience. When every fantasy and sci-fi setting is egalitarian, however, at some point it starts to become a bit unbelievable. But what about a setting similar to our own historical earth, where women rarely had the same opportunities as men to advance in society? How would you design a game where female characters, by the nature of the setting, are excluded from many quests and factions? If the game offered alternative but more difficult/complex routes to complete the story as a woman, you could really make a meaningful comment on the struggles of women in that society. Why do you think we haven't seen more games like this?
Tim inadvertently claims that '90% of games called JRPG are not RPGs'
I was just going to say this. I started with Ultima on the NES and went on to the Final Fantasy series. In my mind, JRPGs are actual RPGs, and everything he's saying is something else.
@@danielszemborski I would tend that if "JRPG" means anything besides the hyper reductive "it came from Japan"
"Western RPG" focuses on the Player's story told through the game
where "JRPG" tends to focus on an interconnected story
@@gardian06_85 The old CRPG/JRPG argument. Been going strong for decades.
@@yurisonovab3892 yeah, but most of the time people are arguing "which is better"; not trying to claim the other "is not a "real" RPG"
Seems to be pretty true, at least going by my own understanding of what an RPG is, and what I enjoy about them.
Have you yourself come to new insights, whether it's on your own games or methods in particular, or games and development in general, from making these videos?
Oooh did you do something with your audio setup? It seems to me like the quality is better now. Maybe I'm just trippin'.
9:55 as an avid game player, consumer,whatever, for me it's STORY, systems, settings. But I play games to relax and be entertained. Also, I don't design games.
I think appearance is important for some people because the extent of which you can personalize the character makes you more likely to get attached to that character, and the game by extension, even if it has no bearing on how the game plays.
From a future biography written by future historians:
An Interplay executive had defined an RPG as a ruleset, HP-tracking, and was applauded. Tim swapped the code for the lives-based system within a recent big-hit platforming title to code for an HP-tracking system, and brought it into the office-room with the words, "Here is your RPG."
Gating - I absolutely agree, blatant "You must meet these criteria" gates are just ugly and inelegant, while rational, in-world or in-system immersive gates are expected. Even in our real daily lives we often run into rational gates - my neighbor's door is locked and I can't enter her home unless she invites me. She doesn't have a sign saying "You must be third level to enter" on her door.
hello Tim, I have a quick question. As a developer, considering what you said, how should I label my game if it doesn't have a lot of RPG elements you mentioned, but the RPG genre is still the closest thing that comes to it. I'm asking mainly because people usually want a very straightforward answer, not me explaining it has an element of that or this
@6:01 Schooldays HQ is a visual novel, hence the choices always matter and you end up with 26 endings that are basically good or bad. It lacks the element of character creation and gameplay is non-existent. It is not an RPG because there is no G.
@7:32 That is how map boundaries work in Fallout 3 and 4.
@8:19 Fallout 4 is not quite that. You need some perks to unlock others.
Never really thought about that before but it occurred to me listening to you, no stats=no rpg. An rpg has to have stats abstracting your character's characteristics (say 3x real fast: ok, go) for randomization tests usually with dice otherwise what you're up to is just doing an improv, ain't it.
have you play this war of mine? that can be made into a great RPG
I agree with all of the given reasons given for point #1, but I do not agree with (or make distinction between) playing one's own character vs. playing an assigned/pre-generated character. A role is a role, so long as the character's past & personality is sufficiently understandable, they can be roleplayed. Fallout plays just the same using Albert, as it would using my own PC diplomat; they both hail from the same home, know the same people, have the same goals, and use the same tactics. Making one's own PC is a welcome feature, but IMO not a detraction if absent.
Kinda hard to define a genre named Role-Playing Games when most games out there are about playing a role.
It's definitely a continuum. It's an old question, and one of those topics you could go for hours about and still miss things - the RPG genre is probably the one that's most connected to video game history and fantasy literature history, and what you take from it. And even then, the additional aspect of world and cultural divides can alter what an RPG's definition is influenced by. Just look at the divide between CRPGs and JRPGs.
Tim, I have a serious question. Were you ever afraid of getting harmed/terminated after talking about certain topics in the game?
😧
I've just come to think of "RPG" and "roleplaying game" as two different things, with the specific (but hazy) distinction on mechanics vs story. Fallout is a roleplaying game, you play a role and have the opportunity to change the course of the game as it progresses. Elden Ring is an RPG: You've got levels and stats to invest in and you can make builds, but there's no real character (role) that you are slipping into the skin of (playing). A game can be both, but of course a game can be multiple genres.
a miserable pile of little secrets