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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good list, what I'd add is that gameplay features should facilitate roleplaying as well. Say Fallout NV where having explosive skill allows to not only do more dmg with explosives, but also plan them via certain skill checks(I'm referencing that Powder Gangers side quest with the mines) or using explosive checks in dialogue to facilitate different choices. If explosive skill and all the rest of the skills were simple stat boosts to dmg, those wouldn't be considered RPG elements, but since they DO stuff besides boosting dmg, like dialogue checks, they are considered proper RPG elements. Also for your last point, big world≠rpg and small world can be RPG world. Compare Tyranny to Fallout 4, F4 has infinitely bigger world than Tyranny does and yet I'd argue Tyranny is way closer to being proper RPG then F4.
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.
When I describe cRPGs to people who don't know them I explain they're like fantasy novels, but the player and their character(s) has agency in the direction of the story, world, and what type of identity the main protagonist(s) has. Character customization, power progression, and player agency the game reacts to are must have features for my cRPGs.
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.
A yt rpg reviewer, Warlockracy, talked about what is or isnt an rpg. He pointed out that a lot of rpg enthusiasts would make a list of things they like in rpgs then say a gane is or isnt an rpg based off that list. I think your absolutely correct that a hard line "is, is not" for what an rpg is, is a fruitless endeavor. But at what point does say, Far Cry, become an rpg when that game series keeps adding in rpg-like mechanics while keeping the action shooting as its main gameplay focus. Even more casual video game fans struggle when it comes to pointing at what games are and are not rpgs. Its a rather frustrating topic since pointing at a games genre is an easy way to know if you may be interested in playing it or recommending it to somebody.
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 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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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 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".
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?
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.
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.
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 )
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'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
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.
What's good to remember is that for better or for worse, game genres are a vibe, it's not JUST RPG genre that struggles to concretely define itself, beat em ups vs hack and slash also struggle to define themselves against another, but I think a really good rule of law on easy identifying NOT RPGs is If the ONLY RPG aspect is only dungeons or only character creation or only skill system then it's NOT an RPG. Just having character creator isn't enough to facilitate *roleplaying* , it's a start but definitely not enough. And Skill systems and dungeons aren't even remotely enough to facilitate Roleplaying as well, although dungeons alone did create their own subgenre, dungeon crawling, which is good for them, but that ain't an RPG, as for Skill systems, again, roleplaying is what's important, skill systems in Borderlands games don't facilitate roleplaying so Borderlands games aren't even remotely an 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
@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.
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."
I love what you have to say here, its refreshing to hear this vs people thinking that anything with levelling is "basically an RPG". One note, personally to me a good character creator is important even if i am in first person perspective and only see my character during cutscenes, bullet time, death animations, etc. It may not be there on the screen at all times, but I know if i look good or not, and it bugs me if i don't. The more customizable the character creator is the more people it appeals to. I do understand this could be viewed as irrelevant for a first person title, but to me it isn't.
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
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.
Does it have choices on how you roleplay the character? Can you roleplay goody two shoes? Or Schizo maniac? Or mercenary who tried to stay away from politics? Does it have skill system you can use to interact with NPC's or world to make choices like FNV? Endings alone do NOT make a game and RPG, at all. Also most of the games with multiple endings barely give any requirements to get those different endings. Do you have to, say, play very differently in your first playthrough to get first ending, very differently in second playthrough to get second ending etc?
@@danielsurvivor1372 sorry for late response, I only saw this now I agree with you, but as you can see, 3 different people 3 different responses, clearly there's a big misconception / confusion on what an RPG stands for
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.
2:20 I agree, for the most part with what you are saying, but I also think you're talking about an essential component OF role play. Designing a character's look and name is setting the tone of how you think YOU would be/look like/function in that world space. Or alternatively the exact opposite, or any combination thereof. AND you can only do this if your character is the so called 'empty vessel' or blank slate. This reason is why I don't consider Fallout 4 to be an RPG, whereas Fallout 1 I do, regardless of how I feel about the quality of 1v4. That is to say, one is a masterpiece of creativity, and the other is cheap and desperate attempt at milking a fanbase of an already established franchise.
_"Designing a character's look and name is setting the tone of how you think YOU would be/look like/function in that world space. AND you can only do this if your character is the so called 'empty vessel' or blank slate."_ Witcher 3? (or the entire trilogy for that matter)
@@fixpontt You don't actually have to play as "Geralt" in those games - sure, you occupy his body, but your choices can be way way off from what Geralt would do. And in most PC RPGs you don't get to make a completely blank slate character. Even in Fallout your character WAS a resident of vault 13 no matter what skills or perks or whatever they may have.
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.
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.
This was a fun thought experiment, note im a data scientist who has played around with creating simple games in my free time not a game designer, but honestly this is more a data science question imo, since its image recognition and prediction. In my opinion once you quantify the attractiveness stat applying it to various checks is truly no different than applying any other stat to checks. But quantifying it is the hard part, I see 2 options an easy and a hard. Easy: Say you have sliders, like many games do, and they range from 0-100 for the various features. We can say that 50 on every slider is the most attractive which would result in an attractiveness stat of 100. As you deviate from the 50 your attractiveness goes down, and we can weight this. Say within 10 points on the slider is a .25 decrease in attractiveness, so having a nose size of 40 or 60 would see you with an attractiveness stat of about 97 but the further you deviate from the 50 the higher the decrease is, like 10-20 becomes .5 attractiveness loss per point of deviation, 30-40 deviation is a whole point loss of attractiveness 30-40 is 2 points and 40-50 is 3. Then just add it all up. Hard: alternatively we could apply some machine learning techniques to it. We can turn a face into vectors(note these are going to be super simple vectors because noone wants to see 1000s of 0s and i don't want to type them to get the point, and in practice itd be more complex taking more precise measurements into account, this example is essentially a 5x5 polygon face where modern images would be 100s x 100. Also note this is a 2d vector when you'd probably want a 3d vector for precision on a 3d model, this greatly increases the computational resources needed and would be a nuisanceto type a 5x5 25 point vector becomes a 5x5x5 125 point vector). Let's say this is the vector for the most attractive nose on a a face and another for eyes. You can read a vector like this, the whole vector is the entire face, 0 is not X(ae not nose or not eyes), 1 is X(is nose or is eyes). Nose: 00000 00000 00100 00000 00000 Eyes: 00000 01010 00000 00000 00000 Then when you create your characters face it will vectorize it similarly and calculate the deviation from the training set and use that to determine attractiveness stat. In practice for an accurate model it would be even more complex in you wouldn't have a single face of the point of comparison but 100s of vectorized faces with varying attractiveness stats predetermined as training set that algorithm will use to predict the attractiveness of the inputted face. At the end of the day, is it worth the computing power to calculate this, probably not. Is it that hard from a data science perspective? Eh not super hard, easier than most image recognition because we have some assumed things, it is definitely a face and its already in the computer so it doesn't really have to read the image if the character creation already assigns vectors to it. The worst part would really be someone has to create the training data, crafted a lot of 3d models and assigning an attractiveness stat to them for the ML model to use as training.
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.
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'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.
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.
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 :)
I get the idea that defining genres is really difficult and subjective and all genres are kinda a continuum and a collection of elements. I feel like this video doesn't do a great job giving a definition of an RPG rather than a list of characteristics of RPGs that Timothy Cain likes. The video kinda pushes for sandbox-style games as opposed to story-driven games and I think most RPGs and what most people think of as RPGs tend to have more of a linear story focus than this list. I'm going to try to reproduce his list and go through each item in it: 1. Character creation - Many RPGs (both computer and tabletop) give a pre-built character or character role. I think it is essential for an RPG to allow you to customize and design your character, but that can be through gameplay (leveling and XP and traits and abilities) and an RPG does not have to have an explicit character creator where you chose features of your character before the game starts. And non-RPG games can have complicated character creation screens or let you pick names, appearances, and a wide variety of traits. 2. Choices matter? - I was a little fuzzy on what the second item on the checklist was, but this seems to be the best I can figure out. Which I think is an important part of defining/identifying a game. That you can use strategies and make choices. I guess the extreme example would be things like visual novels that tend to give relatively few opportunities to choose between relatively few options. Although again, it is a continuum of how few choices a game can have and still be a 'game.' But I feel like having freedom to take different actions doesn't really distinguish RPGs from other games. 3. Choices impact story - This seems to me like a very nitpicky item to include on the checklist, sorta drawing a line between item #2 and item #4 that is a bit fuzzy on both sides, although he does explain it. He gives the example of people reacting when you steal stuff. You can have a linear game or largely linear game that has choices impact story beyond just 'fail' or 'succeed.' I feel like is a kinda fuzzy item and hard to define, but I understand how it could be a uniquely important element of what makes a game an RPG. Does, for example, Pokemon, check this box or not? I am not sure. 4. Non-linear story - I guess you could define non-linearity broadly enough to include any game you want. He stays he wants a player-driven story rather than a story-driven game. So does that mean that games like Dwarf Fortress or Rimworld or Minecraft are RPGs or RPG-like? Many popular RPGs are largely linear, for example Chrono Trigger or Bard's Tale or Diablo. 5. Multiple endings - I think it is an essential aspect of a game that you have a 'fail' state, as mentioned earlier. What happens when you fail can vary. Does having a 'fail' state count as an ending? Then this requirement is trivial. Or do you need to have something post-success that... explains the consequences of your choices throughout the game in a sorta narrative form (not just a score screen). (Or possibly multiple ways to succeed). I don't think this is an essential element of an RPG or something unique to RPGs. Again, as mentioned earlier, visual novels usually have multiple endings and I think we want to distinguish those genres. I do think these elements imply something that is an essential aspect of an RPG that I would include in my list of things defining an RPG - having a story. Not all games with stories are RPGs or RPG-like, but all RPG games have a story. They need to have the same essential conflict introduced for all players and have that conflict resolved at the end for all players (even if RPGs can allow the player to choose evil and have evil triumph). 6. Gating - I'm not clear if he is saying that an RPG must have gating or if he is saying that an RPG must have story/player-choice driven gating. He is critical of 'mechanic' gating - where the game stops you from doing something and just says, "You must be level 20 to do that." or "You cannot do that until you have completed Act 2." Although it is ambiguous how he feels about something like, "You must have 5 strength to equip that item." But regardless, I don't think any of this is really something that essentially defines an RPG. Many RPGs have 'mechanic' gating and many RPGs don't have gating or don't have hardcoded gating. Of course, an RPG needs to have some systems that point you to the intended route, and it is probably good game design to use clever gating systems, but I don't think it is something essential or unique to RPGs. 7. Open world - exploration, side-quests. Lots of genres other than RPGs have open worlds or big worlds and may have side quests or hidden bonuses or optional secrets and exploration. It's not something that, to me, defines what is an RPG. Although depending how you define 'big world,' it is possible that all RPGs have a big world. I think this does get to something he kinda suggests later in his video. He mentions that he tells people when they are developing an RPG to kinda go through this list backwards. Start with the world, then the story, and lastly the mechanics. And that does say something essential to RPGs. RPGs need to have a world - a setting - with defined rules and characteristics of that world that are consistent. The setting can be more or less realistic or futuristic or historical, but a core thing that an RPG needs is a setting. Many games have settings (and stories), but aren't RPGs, but as he says late in the video, when making an RPG it is critical that you come up with a setting and a story. So what is a checklist I'd use to define an RPG? 1. Story and setting - does the game have a setting/universe established for the player that has some consistency and a story with most players seeing the same conflict and resolving that conflict? Although many sandbox games do have some kind of story, I think they fail this plank by not sufficiently encouraging the player to engage with the story. Yes, players in Skyrim or Fallout may sometimes ignore the story or spend a lot of time in game without engaging in the main story, the story remains a core gameplay element and most players have some awareness of the story and experience most or all of the story at some point. 2. Exploration and quests - does the game have some form of exploration and tasks for the player to complete? I guess this is similar to rule 7 from Mr. Cain's list, but different in that it is focused on having exploration and quests. You don't need a quest log to be an RPG. And of course, not all games that have these elements are RPGs. But I will admit that all RPG games need to give you the option to move in different directions to explore the setting and complete tasks. 3. Items and inventory - does the game let you gather items and find and carry and generally equip different items? I don't think an RPG necessarily needs to let you carry more than one item at a time, although it typically does. But I feel like this was missing from Mr. Cain's list entirely and is something that, in my opinion, makes a game RPG-like (although obviously not all games with inventory are RPGs) and I believe all RPGs share (but not all games). 4. Character actions and abilities - does the game allow the player to select between different actions and abilities? This can be, in part, through a character creation screen or customization screen, but not necessarily. This can be fuzzy and... like... as far as I can think, I believe all RPGs have some kind of menuing system for changing character abilities in some way. I think action-adventure games are distinct from RPGs and generally have a limited number of keys assigned to a few abilities although you may be able to change one or more of those abilities by equipping an item. But it is a fuzzy line. 5. Experience and levels - does the game have a system for characters to grow as you play the game? This system does not have to use a certain terminology or format. As far as I can think all RPGs have this? And I would at least define this as an RPG-like mechanic if a game has it. I think this generally excludes Zelda and Mario from RPGs. Sometimes the characters in those games unlock new abilities or attributes, but it is not a consistent growth system like RPGs. 6. Conflict - does the game have a system for the player character to engage in hostile encounters with other game characters that can result in more than one outcome? I don't think you need to have traditional combat to be an RPG. It does not have to be turn-based or real-time or anything. And not all encounters need to be hostile. But I think a defining characteristic of RPGs is hostile encounters where typically there is at least a fail state and a success state. The consequences of a fail state can vary and RPGs frequently have some kind of variation in success states too, but none of that is necessary. I believe that a game is an RPG if and only if it has all 6 items on this list. Do live-service MMORPGs that don't have an ending and are designed to keep adding new story elements and keep players engaged indefinitely meet this definition? It depends what you think of story. Do they count as RPGs? I guess?
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?
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.
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
I appreciate your perspective on limiting the work put into customization of player character appearance Tim, but I think the trends we've seen over time and the voiced opinions from players definitely lean towards loving the most control over their character's appearance possible, even when it doesn't have any mechanical affect. Players absolutely love making little guys who look super cool even when it doesn't matter to the game, because they just love the fun of styling their character and because it feeds into the narrative the player creates in their mind about their playthrough. Looking like an awesome eldritch sorcerer in Skyrim has zero effect on anything, but not being able to dress up and look at myself in third person definitely would've been a lot less fun of an experience.
I am one of those who argues about RPGs. I know that sometimes I'm a bit too much about it as well and feel some shame or embarrassment, but the argument means something to me. However, RPGs as a continuum makes some sense to me and I will try to be open minded to the spectrum of RPG attributes. Thanks Tim! Would love an even deeper dive into your criteria and some examples for each.
I always find it interesting how different people pick and choose which elements of an RPG count as the "RPG" elements. I've always associated the label much more strongly with dungeon crawling and tactical combat than with narrative interactivity.
I mean, the acronym stands for "role-playing game". That is obviously more directly connected to the concept of narrative interactivity than it is to dungeon crawling or tactical combat.
@@slynt_ Really, though? If you are playing the role of an adventurer, surely dungeon delving and fighting monsters is equally as much part of that story as taking part in an overarching narrative is, no?
@@holysecret2The concept of role-playing itself is closely tied to acting, which is inherently more about how characters interact with each other (socially) and with the narrative. But as far as I can tell, it's actually very common for people to define whether or not something is an RPG by how combat mechanics are handled, to the point where they'll claim that a game without combat can't be a role-playing game. Which is super weird to me. It makes sense that there are different aspects of the Dungeons & Dragons-derived soup that have more appeal than others to any given individual, but being so hard-line exclusionary about it is extremely self-centered. It seems to stem from the idea that this broad term should apply only to things that they specifically are into, so they don't have to be more specific with subgenres and qualifiers.
@JediMB like you mentioned, one reason for that link to combat and adventures might be the common association with D&D. The stereotypical RPG setting for me is a group of adventurers in a semi-medieval world fighting dragons and saving kingdoms from dark sorcerers. And if you asked my to list my favorite RPGs - hell, any RPG I know, is actually pretty much that concept, with the only things changing being the kind of protagonist and antagonist, and the setting. But it's usually with adventure and exploration, fighting monsters, as well of course as a grander narrative which you are building your character and / or your party up to finally confront. Quickly sifting through a top 100 top RPGs list, pretty much all the ones I recognize are fantasy / dark fantasy / medieval adventures with combat being not always the focus, but consistently being a significant part of the experience.
1:45 if that’s the case, what about something like Final Fantasy 7? Regardless of whether it’s the original or the remake, the character is not made by the player.
I know this isn’t Tim’s vibe, but I’d love to hear someone make the case for RPGs over straight Adventure, particularly considering the player’s emotional experience. I currently view RPG elements as seasoning to improve an adventure experience, but going full open-ended story just doesn’t sound appealing to me if a writer’s hand was involved. (In that case, it’s emergent or bust for me, e.g. Dwarf Fortress.) I know it’s subjective, but I suppose I just want to understand why people crave it.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Good list, what I'd add is that gameplay features should facilitate roleplaying as well.
Say Fallout NV where having explosive skill allows to not only do more dmg with explosives, but also plan them via certain skill checks(I'm referencing that Powder Gangers side quest with the mines) or using explosive checks in dialogue to facilitate different choices. If explosive skill and all the rest of the skills were simple stat boosts to dmg, those wouldn't be considered RPG elements, but since they DO stuff besides boosting dmg, like dialogue checks, they are considered proper RPG elements.
Also for your last point, big world≠rpg and small world can be RPG world.
Compare Tyranny to Fallout 4, F4 has infinitely bigger world than Tyranny does and yet I'd argue Tyranny is way closer to being proper RPG then F4.
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.
Hey Tim. Can you tell us about times you changed your mind, and or how your design or leadership philosophy has changed over time.
When I describe cRPGs to people who don't know them I explain they're like fantasy novels, but the player and their character(s) has agency in the direction of the story, world, and what type of identity the main protagonist(s) has. Character customization, power progression, and player agency the game reacts to are must have features for my cRPGs.
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.
A yt rpg reviewer, Warlockracy, talked about what is or isnt an rpg. He pointed out that a lot of rpg enthusiasts would make a list of things they like in rpgs then say a gane is or isnt an rpg based off that list.
I think your absolutely correct that a hard line "is, is not" for what an rpg is, is a fruitless endeavor. But at what point does say, Far Cry, become an rpg when that game series keeps adding in rpg-like mechanics while keeping the action shooting as its main gameplay focus.
Even more casual video game fans struggle when it comes to pointing at what games are and are not rpgs. Its a rather frustrating topic since pointing at a games genre is an easy way to know if you may be interested in playing it or recommending it to somebody.
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 love the term adopting a character
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.
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 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.
My definition is a simple one I consider a game an RPG if it allows me to shape the playable character AND the narrative the character exists within.
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?
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.
This was the most diplomatic way you could have approached this. Personally I agree on all points, great video!
I love the character creators all my favorite games have them.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tim, I love your videos and insight. Thank you for doing these (and for everything you’ve done for gaming)!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
You really are a treasure Mr. Cain.
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.
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 )
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'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
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.
What's good to remember is that for better or for worse, game genres are a vibe, it's not JUST RPG genre that struggles to concretely define itself, beat em ups vs hack and slash also struggle to define themselves against another, but I think a really good rule of law on easy identifying NOT RPGs is If the ONLY RPG aspect is only dungeons or only character creation or only skill system then it's NOT an RPG. Just having character creator isn't enough to facilitate *roleplaying* , it's a start but definitely not enough. And Skill systems and dungeons aren't even remotely enough to facilitate Roleplaying as well, although dungeons alone did create their own subgenre, dungeon crawling, which is good for them, but that ain't an RPG, as for Skill systems, again, roleplaying is what's important, skill systems in Borderlands games don't facilitate roleplaying so Borderlands games aren't even remotely an 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.
This was a good video, Tim. You made me rethink some things. Thank you.
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.
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?
For me Wrestling Empire fits your definition perfectly
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Hey Tim, if you haven’t already, I would love to hear your thoughts on dealing with softlocking in game design
Thank you Tim, this was an important video.
Thanks for this content! Have a great weekend Tim! vibes!
Appreciate you posting so much great content, love it.
another great listen. love ya, Tim!
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.
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.
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?
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.
@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.
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
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."
I love what you have to say here, its refreshing to hear this vs people thinking that anything with levelling is "basically an RPG". One note, personally to me a good character creator is important even if i am in first person perspective and only see my character during cutscenes, bullet time, death animations, etc. It may not be there on the screen at all times, but I know if i look good or not, and it bugs me if i don't. The more customizable the character creator is the more people it appeals to. I do understand this could be viewed as irrelevant for a first person title, but to me it isn't.
Can you comment on how much more work a non-linear storyline adds to the development process?
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
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.
Action RPG (Shooter RPG)
Does it have choices on how you roleplay the character? Can you roleplay goody two shoes? Or Schizo maniac? Or mercenary who tried to stay away from politics?
Does it have skill system you can use to interact with NPC's or world to make choices like FNV?
Endings alone do NOT make a game and RPG, at all.
Also most of the games with multiple endings barely give any requirements to get those different endings.
Do you have to, say, play very differently in your first playthrough to get first ending, very differently in second playthrough to get second ending etc?
@@danielsurvivor1372 sorry for late response, I only saw this now
I agree with you, but as you can see, 3 different people 3 different responses, clearly there's a big misconception / confusion on what an RPG stands for
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.
2:20 I agree, for the most part with what you are saying, but I also think you're talking about an essential component OF role play. Designing a character's look and name is setting the tone of how you think YOU would be/look like/function in that world space. Or alternatively the exact opposite, or any combination thereof. AND you can only do this if your character is the so called 'empty vessel' or blank slate. This reason is why I don't consider Fallout 4 to be an RPG, whereas Fallout 1 I do, regardless of how I feel about the quality of 1v4. That is to say, one is a masterpiece of creativity, and the other is cheap and desperate attempt at milking a fanbase of an already established franchise.
_"Designing a character's look and name is setting the tone of how you think YOU would be/look like/function in that world space. AND you can only do this if your character is the so called 'empty vessel' or blank slate."_
Witcher 3? (or the entire trilogy for that matter)
@@fixpontt You don't actually have to play as "Geralt" in those games - sure, you occupy his body, but your choices can be way way off from what Geralt would do.
And in most PC RPGs you don't get to make a completely blank slate character. Even in Fallout your character WAS a resident of vault 13 no matter what skills or perks or whatever they may have.
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.
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.
This was a fun thought experiment, note im a data scientist who has played around with creating simple games in my free time not a game designer, but honestly this is more a data science question imo, since its image recognition and prediction.
In my opinion once you quantify the attractiveness stat applying it to various checks is truly no different than applying any other stat to checks. But quantifying it is the hard part, I see 2 options an easy and a hard.
Easy:
Say you have sliders, like many games do, and they range from 0-100 for the various features. We can say that 50 on every slider is the most attractive which would result in an attractiveness stat of 100. As you deviate from the 50 your attractiveness goes down, and we can weight this. Say within 10 points on the slider is a .25 decrease in attractiveness, so having a nose size of 40 or 60 would see you with an attractiveness stat of about 97 but the further you deviate from the 50 the higher the decrease is, like 10-20 becomes .5 attractiveness loss per point of deviation, 30-40 deviation is a whole point loss of attractiveness 30-40 is 2 points and 40-50 is 3. Then just add it all up.
Hard: alternatively we could apply some machine learning techniques to it. We can turn a face into vectors(note these are going to be super simple vectors because noone wants to see 1000s of 0s and i don't want to type them to get the point, and in practice itd be more complex taking more precise measurements into account, this example is essentially a 5x5 polygon face where modern images would be 100s x 100. Also note this is a 2d vector when you'd probably want a 3d vector for precision on a 3d model, this greatly increases the computational resources needed and would be a nuisanceto type a 5x5 25 point vector becomes a 5x5x5 125 point vector). Let's say this is the vector for the most attractive nose on a a face and another for eyes. You can read a vector like this, the whole vector is the entire face, 0 is not X(ae not nose or not eyes), 1 is X(is nose or is eyes).
Nose:
00000
00000
00100
00000
00000
Eyes:
00000
01010
00000
00000
00000
Then when you create your characters face it will vectorize it similarly and calculate the deviation from the training set and use that to determine attractiveness stat. In practice for an accurate model it would be even more complex in you wouldn't have a single face of the point of comparison but 100s of vectorized faces with varying attractiveness stats predetermined as training set that algorithm will use to predict the attractiveness of the inputted face.
At the end of the day, is it worth the computing power to calculate this, probably not. Is it that hard from a data science perspective? Eh not super hard, easier than most image recognition because we have some assumed things, it is definitely a face and its already in the computer so it doesn't really have to read the image if the character creation already assigns vectors to it. The worst part would really be someone has to create the training data, crafted a lot of 3d models and assigning an attractiveness stat to them for the ML model to use as training.
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.
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'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.
I agree with Todd, Madden has RPG elements
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.
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 :)
Hey Tim, I'd love to hear you talk about Final Fantasy 7, or Japanese RPGs more broadly.
I get the idea that defining genres is really difficult and subjective and all genres are kinda a continuum and a collection of elements. I feel like this video doesn't do a great job giving a definition of an RPG rather than a list of characteristics of RPGs that Timothy Cain likes. The video kinda pushes for sandbox-style games as opposed to story-driven games and I think most RPGs and what most people think of as RPGs tend to have more of a linear story focus than this list. I'm going to try to reproduce his list and go through each item in it:
1. Character creation - Many RPGs (both computer and tabletop) give a pre-built character or character role. I think it is essential for an RPG to allow you to customize and design your character, but that can be through gameplay (leveling and XP and traits and abilities) and an RPG does not have to have an explicit character creator where you chose features of your character before the game starts. And non-RPG games can have complicated character creation screens or let you pick names, appearances, and a wide variety of traits.
2. Choices matter? - I was a little fuzzy on what the second item on the checklist was, but this seems to be the best I can figure out. Which I think is an important part of defining/identifying a game. That you can use strategies and make choices. I guess the extreme example would be things like visual novels that tend to give relatively few opportunities to choose between relatively few options. Although again, it is a continuum of how few choices a game can have and still be a 'game.' But I feel like having freedom to take different actions doesn't really distinguish RPGs from other games.
3. Choices impact story - This seems to me like a very nitpicky item to include on the checklist, sorta drawing a line between item #2 and item #4 that is a bit fuzzy on both sides, although he does explain it. He gives the example of people reacting when you steal stuff. You can have a linear game or largely linear game that has choices impact story beyond just 'fail' or 'succeed.' I feel like is a kinda fuzzy item and hard to define, but I understand how it could be a uniquely important element of what makes a game an RPG. Does, for example, Pokemon, check this box or not? I am not sure.
4. Non-linear story - I guess you could define non-linearity broadly enough to include any game you want. He stays he wants a player-driven story rather than a story-driven game. So does that mean that games like Dwarf Fortress or Rimworld or Minecraft are RPGs or RPG-like? Many popular RPGs are largely linear, for example Chrono Trigger or Bard's Tale or Diablo.
5. Multiple endings - I think it is an essential aspect of a game that you have a 'fail' state, as mentioned earlier. What happens when you fail can vary. Does having a 'fail' state count as an ending? Then this requirement is trivial. Or do you need to have something post-success that... explains the consequences of your choices throughout the game in a sorta narrative form (not just a score screen). (Or possibly multiple ways to succeed). I don't think this is an essential element of an RPG or something unique to RPGs. Again, as mentioned earlier, visual novels usually have multiple endings and I think we want to distinguish those genres. I do think these elements imply something that is an essential aspect of an RPG that I would include in my list of things defining an RPG - having a story. Not all games with stories are RPGs or RPG-like, but all RPG games have a story. They need to have the same essential conflict introduced for all players and have that conflict resolved at the end for all players (even if RPGs can allow the player to choose evil and have evil triumph).
6. Gating - I'm not clear if he is saying that an RPG must have gating or if he is saying that an RPG must have story/player-choice driven gating. He is critical of 'mechanic' gating - where the game stops you from doing something and just says, "You must be level 20 to do that." or "You cannot do that until you have completed Act 2." Although it is ambiguous how he feels about something like, "You must have 5 strength to equip that item." But regardless, I don't think any of this is really something that essentially defines an RPG. Many RPGs have 'mechanic' gating and many RPGs don't have gating or don't have hardcoded gating. Of course, an RPG needs to have some systems that point you to the intended route, and it is probably good game design to use clever gating systems, but I don't think it is something essential or unique to RPGs.
7. Open world - exploration, side-quests. Lots of genres other than RPGs have open worlds or big worlds and may have side quests or hidden bonuses or optional secrets and exploration. It's not something that, to me, defines what is an RPG. Although depending how you define 'big world,' it is possible that all RPGs have a big world. I think this does get to something he kinda suggests later in his video. He mentions that he tells people when they are developing an RPG to kinda go through this list backwards. Start with the world, then the story, and lastly the mechanics. And that does say something essential to RPGs. RPGs need to have a world - a setting - with defined rules and characteristics of that world that are consistent. The setting can be more or less realistic or futuristic or historical, but a core thing that an RPG needs is a setting. Many games have settings (and stories), but aren't RPGs, but as he says late in the video, when making an RPG it is critical that you come up with a setting and a story.
So what is a checklist I'd use to define an RPG?
1. Story and setting - does the game have a setting/universe established for the player that has some consistency and a story with most players seeing the same conflict and resolving that conflict? Although many sandbox games do have some kind of story, I think they fail this plank by not sufficiently encouraging the player to engage with the story. Yes, players in Skyrim or Fallout may sometimes ignore the story or spend a lot of time in game without engaging in the main story, the story remains a core gameplay element and most players have some awareness of the story and experience most or all of the story at some point.
2. Exploration and quests - does the game have some form of exploration and tasks for the player to complete? I guess this is similar to rule 7 from Mr. Cain's list, but different in that it is focused on having exploration and quests. You don't need a quest log to be an RPG. And of course, not all games that have these elements are RPGs. But I will admit that all RPG games need to give you the option to move in different directions to explore the setting and complete tasks.
3. Items and inventory - does the game let you gather items and find and carry and generally equip different items? I don't think an RPG necessarily needs to let you carry more than one item at a time, although it typically does. But I feel like this was missing from Mr. Cain's list entirely and is something that, in my opinion, makes a game RPG-like (although obviously not all games with inventory are RPGs) and I believe all RPGs share (but not all games).
4. Character actions and abilities - does the game allow the player to select between different actions and abilities? This can be, in part, through a character creation screen or customization screen, but not necessarily. This can be fuzzy and... like... as far as I can think, I believe all RPGs have some kind of menuing system for changing character abilities in some way. I think action-adventure games are distinct from RPGs and generally have a limited number of keys assigned to a few abilities although you may be able to change one or more of those abilities by equipping an item. But it is a fuzzy line.
5. Experience and levels - does the game have a system for characters to grow as you play the game? This system does not have to use a certain terminology or format. As far as I can think all RPGs have this? And I would at least define this as an RPG-like mechanic if a game has it. I think this generally excludes Zelda and Mario from RPGs. Sometimes the characters in those games unlock new abilities or attributes, but it is not a consistent growth system like RPGs.
6. Conflict - does the game have a system for the player character to engage in hostile encounters with other game characters that can result in more than one outcome? I don't think you need to have traditional combat to be an RPG. It does not have to be turn-based or real-time or anything. And not all encounters need to be hostile. But I think a defining characteristic of RPGs is hostile encounters where typically there is at least a fail state and a success state. The consequences of a fail state can vary and RPGs frequently have some kind of variation in success states too, but none of that is necessary.
I believe that a game is an RPG if and only if it has all 6 items on this list. Do live-service MMORPGs that don't have an ending and are designed to keep adding new story elements and keep players engaged indefinitely meet this definition? It depends what you think of story. Do they count as RPGs? I guess?
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?
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.
3:07 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 YES! you should see your face right now! So relatable.
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
Thanks for talking about gating!
I appreciate your perspective on limiting the work put into customization of player character appearance Tim, but I think the trends we've seen over time and the voiced opinions from players definitely lean towards loving the most control over their character's appearance possible, even when it doesn't have any mechanical affect. Players absolutely love making little guys who look super cool even when it doesn't matter to the game, because they just love the fun of styling their character and because it feeds into the narrative the player creates in their mind about their playthrough. Looking like an awesome eldritch sorcerer in Skyrim has zero effect on anything, but not being able to dress up and look at myself in third person definitely would've been a lot less fun of an experience.
now is that because these characters are going to be appearing in multiplayer like dragon's dogma?
I am one of those who argues about RPGs. I know that sometimes I'm a bit too much about it as well and feel some shame or embarrassment, but the argument means something to me. However, RPGs as a continuum makes some sense to me and I will try to be open minded to the spectrum of RPG attributes.
Thanks Tim! Would love an even deeper dive into your criteria and some examples for each.
I always find it interesting how different people pick and choose which elements of an RPG count as the "RPG" elements. I've always associated the label much more strongly with dungeon crawling and tactical combat than with narrative interactivity.
I mean, the acronym stands for "role-playing game". That is obviously more directly connected to the concept of narrative interactivity than it is to dungeon crawling or tactical combat.
@@slynt_ Really, though? If you are playing the role of an adventurer, surely dungeon delving and fighting monsters is equally as much part of that story as taking part in an overarching narrative is, no?
@@holysecret2The concept of role-playing itself is closely tied to acting, which is inherently more about how characters interact with each other (socially) and with the narrative.
But as far as I can tell, it's actually very common for people to define whether or not something is an RPG by how combat mechanics are handled, to the point where they'll claim that a game without combat can't be a role-playing game.
Which is super weird to me. It makes sense that there are different aspects of the Dungeons & Dragons-derived soup that have more appeal than others to any given individual, but being so hard-line exclusionary about it is extremely self-centered. It seems to stem from the idea that this broad term should apply only to things that they specifically are into, so they don't have to be more specific with subgenres and qualifiers.
@JediMB like you mentioned, one reason for that link to combat and adventures might be the common association with D&D. The stereotypical RPG setting for me is a group of adventurers in a semi-medieval world fighting dragons and saving kingdoms from dark sorcerers.
And if you asked my to list my favorite RPGs - hell, any RPG I know, is actually pretty much that concept, with the only things changing being the kind of protagonist and antagonist, and the setting. But it's usually with adventure and exploration, fighting monsters, as well of course as a grander narrative which you are building your character and / or your party up to finally confront.
Quickly sifting through a top 100 top RPGs list, pretty much all the ones I recognize are fantasy / dark fantasy / medieval adventures with combat being not always the focus, but consistently being a significant part of the experience.
1:45 if that’s the case, what about something like Final Fantasy 7? Regardless of whether it’s the original or the remake, the character is not made by the player.
I know this isn’t Tim’s vibe, but I’d love to hear someone make the case for RPGs over straight Adventure, particularly considering the player’s emotional experience.
I currently view RPG elements as seasoning to improve an adventure experience, but going full open-ended story just doesn’t sound appealing to me if a writer’s hand was involved. (In that case, it’s emergent or bust for me, e.g. Dwarf Fortress.)
I know it’s subjective, but I suppose I just want to understand why people crave it.
Everyone knows the superior definition is Really Phat Gophers. Any other choice is inferior.
I really enjoy your voice. Have you considered narrating a game. I imagine a whimsical persona.