I could posit that RPGs are all games and only games with "Dragon" in the title. Then you could go: but what about Ultima and Pools of Radiance and Baldur's Gate? And I could go "they're not RPGs, they can't be because they don't have 'Dragon' in the title". If I keep doing this, after 30 pages, no-one will be able to find any exception to my definition either.
Wot I Think: The Game : an ongoing collaborative game-design experiment / comedic disaster here on the RPS Forums!
Kata vs. Kata : a game of simultaneous round-based predictive martial arts (like frozen synapse, but with punches)
My Games on Kongregate : "computainments" for your world wide web experience
I mean, the only real issue with my definition seems to be what people consider the divide between action RPGs and RPGs. We never really got on to discussing that in the thread.
And in the gaming taxonomy, "RPG" is placed at the same level as "FPS" which specifically means "game where you shoot things in the first person"... the difference in the width of definition is silly. Yes, we can narrow it down with prefixes and suffixes, but it's getting to the point where it's almost silly to bother. The prefix becomes far more descriptive of the type of game than the "RPG" bit to the point that it might as as well not even be there.
Ah, it's that time of the year again. Round and round it goes.
Therefore, it seems a bit far fetched to attribute the decline of "Adventure" game releases to the emergence of that new genre.
Now, I still am wondering why people get upset about "Action-RPGs". Maybe the name isn't very fitting, as these games have more to do with shooting than the player interacting with the game world, but the confusion really ends here. Neither have these games brought upon us the end of the classic "RPGs", nor do they claim to be a full-blooded "RPG". They are just popular and successful because they appeal to a lot of people. Maybe these people would never have liked a classic "RPG" to begin with but love the mix of shooting/hacking and talking in a sci-fi/fantasy world.
It might be a shame to see a genre that you love dwindle away but that has little to do with another genre "stealing" its name and more with itself lacking popularity.
Last edited by squirrelfanatic; 21-02-2012 at 04:55 PM.
I don't think that Wizardry's definition was strong enough. It doesn't seem to rule out games on a much larger scale (for instance, Crusader Kings almost falls into this RPG definition and its mechanics could easily be adjusted to make it fit perfectly) or tactical wargames. I think the definition of RPG ought to exclude these sorts of thing.
That's the point: I don't think games of that type should be considered to "include" an RPG.
NEWSFLASH: Genre definitions are sloppy.
Some people care about this.
I don't understand why.
Would a game like Dungeon Master, Abandoned Places or Legends Of Grimrock (at least the parts the devs talked about so far) count as an RPG or Action RPG then? Or would Dungeon Crawlers be a sub-genre on its own? I can certainly see the abstraction level, but they don't seem to change gameplay according to the player as far as I remember.
Why does this matter so much to people? I don't give a shit if a game is technically a cRPG or an action RPG. I just want to play fun games.