What is a cRPG? 2014 edition

U7 features exploration, world interaction, c&c, quests, subquests, puzzles, secrets, stories & lore, unique items, party development ...
these are all CRPG elements IMHO.

 

To me, an RPG is all about sticky covers, popping moles with reckless abandon, driving the dialogue wheel and convulsing in the rhythm of seizure inducing minigames.

 

most of your points are redundant and already contained in the others... well, you're obviously a storyfag, which is ok, but it seems to me like you mix up elements that are actually critical to rpgs as a genre with elements that make up good storyfag games (of any genre) and start attributing them to rpgs since those are the kinds of rpgs you like.
anyhoo, my take on your points is this:
you can have a good and fun rpg that has barebones world interaction, zero exploration, only the gameplay systems variety of c&c (since you seem to be a storyfag, i assume when you say c&c you actually only mean c&c of the storyfag kind, not the usually used codex definition of the term), no quests, puzzles or secrets, no unique items, party and just the hint of a story. it's somewhat easy to do even. all you need is good underlying mechanics with a good combat system on top, good encounter design and then you can just put an arena setting on top where you have to fight a certain number of fights to finish the game.

doesn't have any of your elements but is an rpg and its quality is directly tied to the quality of its rpg mechanics and how they tie into combat and the rest of gameplay in the game. as a storyfag you might not enjoy it, but plenty of people will and there is no denying that it is an rpg.

now look at outcast. it has nearly all of your elements, and is an excellent game because of them, but only the most obstinate twat would ever claim that it's an rpg (or those weirdos that define rpg through c&c alone, like whoever voted for sc2 in this list).

we have subgenres of rpg like hack'n slash which focus solely on combat. all games that are unarguably rpgs have a strong focus on mechanics, while games that don't have them but are very reminiscent of storyfag rpgs are usually called adventure games.

 

In the book "Fundamentals of Game Design" by Ernest Adams you can find the following short definition of CRPGs:

A role playing game is one in which the player controls one or more characters, typically designed by the player, and guides them through a series of quests managed by the computer. Victory consists of completing theses quests. Character growth in power and abilities is a key feature of the genre. Typical challenges include tactical combat, logistics, economic growth, exploration and puzzle solving. Physical coordination challenges are rare except in RPG-action hybrids.

Easier: Ken Rolston. He says there are 4 main pillars of RPG gaming.
1. Narrative
2. Advancement
3. Exploration
4. Combat
If a game has those 4 elements, then it's an RPG. Easy enough.

More refined: RPGWatch Definition

 

This is bullshit in the context of videogames, much like most attempts at CRPG definition

 

Excidium - No offense, but I trust the designer of Morrowind more than you.

 

I know who Ken Rolston is. He also did design for Paranoia. Which doesn't really matter - that definition is wrong, and you could find a load of videogames that fit the bill but aren't CRPGs.

 

Imagine some generic RTS, giving us combat. Uncovering the map to find bigger and smaller goodies is exploration. Upgradable units, research and tech trees supply advancement. Mission briefings, recaps and endings are the narrative structure.

Oh shit, generic RTS games are RPGs now!

 

So the definition delievers necessary but not sufficient conditions.
Such definitions are still helpful to categorize games. And to exclude games from the CRPG genre.

PS:
Koschey
the imaginary game you describe is very close to a CRPG...

 

It doesn't really help anything with how vague it is.

 

Is it me or you've just described Baldurs' Gate?

 

Look at the more refined version and try it - it just works for the majority of CRPGs out there.

 

That list of criteria already falls apart on the first second item.

 

C1 you can control one or more characters

All CRPGs feature this one.

 

So Fallout 1 and the Gothic games are not CRPGs?

Edit: even Fallout 2 actually, since you didn't control the party members. Same with Arcanum. VTMB has no party members either.

 

I meant this one:

C2: you can progressively develop your characters' stats or abilities (=> e.g. through quests, exploration, conversation, combat, …)

 

Most of these apply to a lot of games other than CRPGs.

 

I was actually thinking of something more along the lines of Warcraft II for example. Features all four categories, but I wouldn't call it an RPG.

Another concrete example is Metroid Fusion. Combat? Check. Exploration? Check. Advancement? Check. Narrative? Check. An RPG? I think not.

Tech trees and research in Baldur's gate? But fair enough, I didn't mention scale, base building or disjunct mission maps. Though that's kinda the point. Rolston's criteria are general to the point of being useless.

 

agentorange
C1: you can control one or more characters

you can't read - you control your char in the Fallouts

Excidium
C2: you can progressively develop your characters' stats or abilities (=> e.g. through quests, exploration, conversation, combat, …)

Show me a CRPG in which you can't develop stats or abilities of your chars...

 

Didn't you people do any research before coming up with that list? There's plenty of RPGs where statistical character development is non-existant or close to non-existant to the point of it not being a defining aspect of the genre, most obvious example would be Traveller.

 

i can get down behind the one by adams with the exception that "quests" is just a fancy word for tasks and most non-abstract games are inherently task-driven, so it is in no shape or form something so unique to rpgs that it needs pointing out and that what separates character growth in power and abilities in rpgs from character growth in power and abilities in non-rpg games (like buying better and more diverse weapons for your mech or shoot'em up starship or upgrading your car engine while adding some weapons) are, y'know, the rpg mechanics of the game. but yeah, advancement is somewhat important and contained automatically in mechanics of the rpg variety, although not critical to rpgs (even if fantasy castle was all about it). so if i am not mistaken he defines rpgs roughly the same as i do.

what ken rolston says on the other hand is just bullshit. just look at a tale in the desert which is undeniably not only an rpg but an mmorpg with zero combat. even when you broaden combat to mean competition it is still wrong as you could make an rpg all about exploration and puzzle solving via stats without anyone else but your own character and thus no competition possible, unless you go all "no scotsman" and just exclude it for the sole reason that it has no combat from the definition.

last but not least i don't care what the watch says in its wall of stupid and don't have enough time in any given day to waste on reading that monstrosity let alone the energy to address it point by point.

either way, stop quoting websites and people and address what i said yourself using your own damn brain and arguments while i go to sleep.

 

Excidium
I know only Mega-Traveller

Many of attributes and char develoment.
=>
C2: you can progressively develop your characters' stats or abilities (=> e.g. through quests, exploration, conversation, combat, …) is fulfilled.

SuicideBunny
I can cite the RPGWatch definition all day long because I used my brain and worked a few weeks on it...

Let's no longer hijack felipepepe 's thread, but fact is Ultima 7 is a CRPG.

 

When a character retires or "musters out", he or she is added to the pool of available adventurers from which a party is chosen by the player to begin the game.

That is the character generation process.

 

I don't like CRPGs, I prefer games where you don't control one or more characters