Decline Can we please stop calling RPGs without gameplay Adventures?

[Harthwain]

Realistically the adventure genre is pretty much dead.

Not true. Point and click adventure games may not be popular, but there are indies out there who still make them.

 

[Tavar]

Not sure about BG, but I can distinctly remember how Morrowind was received by then-oldschool gamers as huge decline and disappointment compared to Daggerfall.
Even more so, Diablo - that was a swearword back then, the epitome of decline. And now you have folks considering it a classic of ARPGs.

What ARPGs were there before Diablo 1? I always had the impression that the ARPG genre was defined by this game.

 

[Verylittlefishes]

Realistically the adventure genre is pretty much dead.

Not true. Point and click adventure games may not be popular, but there are indies out there who still make them.

WadjetEye keeping genre alive almost single-handlely and these ones are good

 

[Norfleet]

What ARPGs were there before Diablo 1? I always had the impression that the ARPG genre was defined by this game.

I vaguely recall an old BBS game whose name I forget that was functionally a real-time Nethack, which is itself what Diablo 1 draws from in its design. It didn't catch much in the way of traction because of its glorious ASCII graphics, though.

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

I don’t like this idea that a fixed protagonist excludes a game from being a RPG. Wizardry 4 comes to mind, but also games that have fixed party composition like The Dark Heart of Uukrul.

Well you have to draw the line somewhere with this. We are in this mess partly because of not drawing these boundaries. If a game with a fixed protagonist can be an RPG, there really is not much else that we could use to infer the rpg vs. non-rpg distinction. We will always end up with false positives.

This fixed x custom protagonist debate steers the discussion away from what really matters: the gameplay.

You say this with such confidence, but then provide no further explanation, and besides it misrepresents the point. The act of defining and expressing your character in the game is entirely done via "gameplay". So if you have some other gameplay-specific metric, other than what i'm suggesting (creating your own character and express in the game world to affect the story/narrative/world etc.), then by all means, share it. If by gameplay you mean combat, then yeah I partially agree. If the RPG is going to have combat in it, then sure, your choices as the player should personalize the experience to facilitate the expression of your character. I think this is the point of role-playing in general.

 

[V_K]

Not sure about BG, but I can distinctly remember how Morrowind was received by then-oldschool gamers as huge decline and disappointment compared to Daggerfall.
Even more so, Diablo - that was a swearword back then, the epitome of decline. And now you have folks considering it a classic of ARPGs.

What ARPGs were there before Diablo 1? I always had the impression that the ARPG genre was defined by this game.

Well, in contemporary sense, Diablo itself isn't an ARPG since its to-hit chance is stat-based.
As far as single-character real-time RPGs without pause go, there were, off the top of my head, Prophecy of the Shadow, Ultima 8, the whole Event Horizon catalogue (DarkSpyre, The Summoning, Dusk of The Gods etc.), Faery Tale Adventure, lots of console titles etc. DarkSpyre even had procedurally generated dungeons, although some floor were hand designed and featured Dungeon Master-style puzzles (but also picked at random from an array).
And if we allow for first-person games, there are of course Ultima Underworld and early TES.

EDIT: I see now that I might have worded my original post a bit ambiguously. Diablo wasn't perceived as the decline of ARPGs, it was perceived as the decline of RPGs in general - with a lot of arguments, very similar to contemporary ones, that it's not an RPG at all but an action game.

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

EDIT: I see now that I might have worded my original post a bit ambiguously. Diablo wasn't perceived as the decline of ARPGs, it was perceived as the decline of RPGs in general - with a lot of arguments, very similar to contemporary ones, that it's not an RPG at all but an action game.

War. War never changes.

 

[V_K]

The act of defining and expressing your character in the game is entirely done via "gameplay". So if you have some other gameplay-specific metric, other than what i'm suggesting (creating your own character and express in the game world to affect the story/narrative/world etc.), then by all means, share it. If by gameplay you mean combat, then yeah I partially agree. If the RPG is going to have combat in it, then sure, your choices as the player should personalize the experience to facilitate the expression of your character.

So what does it matter than if the character has a fixed name and appearance if the parts that are relevant for interaction with the gameworld - attributes and skills - are still defined by you?

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

So what does it matter than if the character has a fixed name and appearance if the parts that are relevant for interaction with the gameworld - attributes and skills - are still defined by you?

Personally, I'd rather be able to define the appearance and name as well, but I'd say that it is not *essential* IF you still have a fair degree of freedom in expressing a personality. It's not just about being able to choose stealth over combat, or different types of combat over the other. There needs to be a personality component just as strong. To me, playing a role must necessarily include a personality component. The problem is that games often have characters with pre-defined names and apperances, because they also have a pre-defined personality. Those games are about those pre-defined characters, they are the stories of those characters. Not the stories of the character defined by the player.

 

[V_K]

There needs to be a personality component just as strong. To me, playing a role must necessarily include a personality component.

By that logic most dungeon crawlers aren't RPGs since they don't have any dialogs and next to no story.

 

[Tavar]

EDIT: I see now that I might have worded my original post a bit ambiguously. Diablo wasn't perceived as the decline of ARPGs, it was perceived as the decline of RPGs in general - with a lot of arguments, very similar to contemporary ones, that it's not an RPG at all but an action game.

OK that makes a lot more sense. I only asked about the ARPGs before Diablo because I was wondering how the game could be considered as decline for this particular subgenre. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[samuraigaiden]

You say this with such confidence, but then provide no further explanation

That sentence was very self explanatory.

The problem is that games often have characters with pre-defined names and apperances, because they also have a pre-defined personality.

Saints Row lets you make your own character, down to the voice tone and dick size. Not a RPG tho. Werdna has a fixed personality, a fixed look, doesn't even gain exp! And yet, Wizardry 4 is a RPG.

So what's the take away? Gameplay is the defining element of a videogame, everything else is secondary.

Adventure games are defined by puzzles as the main form of gameplay. That's why we should "stop calling RPGs without gameplay Adventures". RPGs are defined by stat based gameplay that exists to enable player freedom of expression within the scope of the scenario.

To determine if a game is a RPG or not, the questions should probably be in the general direction of: do the stats matter? Do they matter outside of combat? Are there non-combat skills? Is there input over character development and party composition? And for story focused games, is there input on the story, is it heavily scripted, are story choices expressed through gameplay or dialogue choices, etc.

Being allowed to project a personality onto a blank slate character isn't exclusive to any particular game genre, nor does it constitute gameplay.

 

[octavius]

EDIT: I see now that I might have worded my original post a bit ambiguously. Diablo wasn't perceived as the decline of ARPGs, it was perceived as the decline of RPGs in general - with a lot of arguments, very similar to contemporary ones, that it's not an RPG at all but an action game.

In 1996 the RPG genre was almost dead. So Diablo was also perceived as a game that invigorated a dying genre.
I remember personally thinking all the RTS games that were all the rage back then was a major decline to gaming in general, and that I liked Diablo.

 

[bandersnatch]

It seems really pointless to even discuss these things anymore. We no longer get to decide what RPG's are, the larger game companies do. Cyberpuke is a perfect example of that. They are focused on making FPS (or VR) interactive "movie" experiences.

It's just like Hollywood now...as long as we keep giving our money to the Marvel and Star Wars franchises, they will keep shoveling out more crap. The large game studios know this and take a cue from it. It doesn't matter what they make really, they have the media in their pockets, so if they call something an RPG, we will talk about it and give our money to them. Even though we know we will probably get more of the same thing... another disappointing interactive "B rated movie" that even fancy cameo's from actors can't save. In the end, they still win and RPGs still lose.

 

[Derringer]

Diablo and post-Fallout Black Isle games are essentially RTS RPG hybrids like other people have said, just without the base building.

 

[V_K]

EDIT: I see now that I might have worded my original post a bit ambiguously. Diablo wasn't perceived as the decline of ARPGs, it was perceived as the decline of RPGs in general - with a lot of arguments, very similar to contemporary ones, that it's not an RPG at all but an action game.

In 1996 the RPG genre was almost dead. So Diablo was also perceived as a game that invigorated a dying genre.
I remember personally thinking all the RTS games that were all the rage back then was a major decline to gaming in general, and that I liked Diablo.

Well, I'm going by discussions in Russian RPG-themed forums and FIDO groups. Also probably less so in 1996 and more around 1999, when Diablo's effect on RPG industry became obvious. And let me tell you, compared to what was said about Diablo then and there, the Codex's treatment of, say, Oblivion looks warm and friendly.

 

[Ismaul]

Minesweeper is the best Adventure game.

 

[Ismaul]

When I think of "adventure", puzzles don't really come to mind.

The Adventure genre was badly named from the start to make it sound more exciting.

 

[octavius]

Diablo and post-Fallout Black Isle games are essentially RTS RPG hybrids like other people have said, just without the base building.

In Diablo you control one character, just like in many other RPGs and like FPS games, while in RTS games you control lots of units in real time. I don't see the connection; personally I think it's a huge difference.
In IE games you control up to six characters, but unlike RTS games you have to pause unless you're Suqua Roqua, so it plays more like a turn based game.

 

[Norfleet]

The Adventure genre was badly named from the start to make it sound more exciting.

The "Adventure" genre isn't "badly named", it's an eponymous genre, like the "X-Com" or the "Diablo" genre, named after its original game, "Colossal Cave Adventure" aka "advent".

The name itself has no real other meaning, it's taken directly from the progenitor. These days the more formal name might be "Interaction Fiction".

In Diablo you control one character, just like in many other RPGs and like FPS games, while in RTS games you control lots of units in real time. I don't see the connection; personally I think it's a huge difference.

Controlling one character was actually kind of an anomaly in an RPG. The great majority of RPGs have you controlling a party, either as a blob or as separate characters. Very few were single character prior to Diablo because, at its core, the RPG genre was not mechanically complex and typically drew from tabletop, so having only a single character would be rather boring, not to mention that making it single-character would effectively mean the character had to be independently capable of fulling all required roles. This is why Diablo characters can basically do everything, and classes are just about different ways of doing those things. Compare that to traditional party/tabletop-styled RPGs where classes are all much more specialized: Fighters are basically totally incapable of healing or casting spells, Wizards are basically totally incapable of fighting or healing, etc. This is why Cleric was always the best class because Cleric can do everything on top of being the only class that could heal.

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

Saints Row lets you make your own character, down to the voice tone and dick size. Not a RPG tho. Werdna has a fixed personality, a fixed look, doesn't even gain exp! And yet, Wizardry 4 is a RPG.

Call of duty lets you develop your combat stats, gain XP and level them up. Is it an RPG then? This line of reasoning is not coducive to the argument in either direction. The point is to come up with a definition to RPGs. In almost every video game, you are given a role to play as. Being able to define your own role is the sole distinctive feature of the RPG, in my opinion. The reason I hold this opinion is because I am not able to identify a better metric that does not produce false positives as of yet.

So what's the take away? Gameplay is the defining element of a videogame, everything else is secondary.

As I said, the acts of defining a personality is all done through gameplay, or else is not a feature of the game. This point is moot. I encourage further thought on this point on your part.

To determine if a game is a RPG or not, the questions should probably be in the general direction of: do the stats matter? Do they matter outside of combat? Are there non-combat skills? Is there input over character development and party composition? And for story focused games, is there input on the story, is it heavily scripted, are story choices expressed through gameplay or dialogue choices, etc.

This definition is not complete imo and allows for false positives. Both your Saints Row example and the CoD example show this. There needs to be total freedom for the player to be able to create and express their own character.

Being allowed to project a personality onto a blank slate character isn't exclusive to any particular game genre, nor does it constitute gameplay.

There needs to be a personality component just as strong. To me, playing a role must necessarily include a personality component.

By that logic most dungeon crawlers aren't RPGs since they don't have any dialogs and next to no story.

Yes, it is exclusive to RPGs. There are no non-rpgs that let you create and express your own character. Almost every other game either has no narrative that needs a character to begin with, or gives you a pre-made one as the center point to which the story revolves around. RPGs are unique because they allow the player to define that character. To do that, there needs to be both a personality, and a techincal (combat, non-social abilities etc.). This distinction between story vs. gameplay is purely arbitrary because both elements are always presented and guided via gameplay. Also, I am hard pressed to think of an RPG without at least a narrative. I'd even argue that an RPG without a narrative is probably not an RPG. Even in TTRPGs I am hard pressed to think of an RPG without stories and personality components. This goes back to my original point in saying that we should probably make better distinctions between action/adevnture RPGs, Dungeon Crawlers, Tactics games, Management games, games with "rpg elements", and actual RPGs.

 

[samuraigaiden]

You sound like a post-Jade Empire Bioware fag.

 

[Verylittlefishes]

The "Adventure" genre isn't "badly named", it's an eponymous genre, like the "X-Com" or the "Diablo" genre, named after its original game, "Colossal Cave Adventure" aka "advent".

In Russia we just called them "quests" until late 2000s, because of Space Quest, Police Quest etc

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

It seems really pointless to even discuss these things anymore. We no longer get to decide what RPG's are, the larger game companies do. Cyberpuke is a perfect example of that. They are focused on making FPS (or VR) interactive "movie" experiences.

Well before its release, CDPR stopped referring to Cyberpunk 2077 as an RPG, which was replaced with "action-adventure story" as its core description. Even if RPG Codex has decided that an RPG is anything that refers to itself as such, Cyberpunk 2077 still shouldn't be considered an RPG, and this change serves as an indication that the term RPG retains a modicum of a valid meaning in the broader game-playing community.

The name itself has no real other meaning, it's taken directly from the progenitor. These days the more formal name might be "Interaction Fiction".

Interactive Fiction has some relation to text adventure games, but the term is generally applied to works that lack any gameplay, much less the particular form of gameplay that defines the adventure genre.

In Russia we just called them "quests" until late 2000s, because of Space Quest, Police Quest etc

Should have referred to them as Zork-likes.

 

[Norfleet]

Call of duty lets you develop your combat stats, gain XP and level them up. Is it an RPG then? This line of reasoning is not coducive to the argument in either direction. The point is to come up with a definition to RPGs.

I think your issue is that you're trying to draw a line in the sand where something either is or is not an RPG. Call of Duty is first and foremost a shooter, having checked all of the boxes for being a shooter. Evaluating it as an RPG, we see it checks a fair number of boxes, and thus contains a number of RPG-like elements, and also, actual RPGs. But because it has checked so many more boxes for "shooter", even though it also checks a fair number of RPG boxes, it will be classified as primarily a shooter.

A better example might be something like Deus Ex, which checks significantly more RPG boxes, but also checks nearly all the shooter boxes. With so much more weight to its RPG score, it is more RPG than Call of Duty is.

Should have referred to them as Zork-likes.

Except ADVENT predates and directly inspired Zork. By the time they made Zork, the name was already there.