Incline What is an RPG score? How do we measure?

[Not.AI]

soulless and bland when you look last that. If the model doesn't overrate the fuck out of tthat game, I would accept it.

Here is science in action. A first community suggestion of a quantitative sanity-check. A test-case?

1. Any valid game score model should give a reasonable score even for games that are designed as if they "know" the exact model and checklist the model's main factors in a bland, least effort, or incoherent fashion.

Many open world games 2017-2022 have that pattern. (Ubisoft?)

Many different ways for a model to pass such a test. Like "soulless and bland" could be a core factor itself. Any meta-factor could be allowed as a main factor. Provided it's correlation with other factors, while not zero, being a meta-factor, is not significantly more with one factor than another factor.

In that case it could be modeled as a "macro" or synchronized-type variable (the test for being a "macro" variable would be whether tendencies toward game-theoretic equilibria are large when comparing competing designs because players as if "move" at once) while others are modeled as asynchronous "micro" variables. Like the separation of types of risks in finance maybe?

 

[thesecret1]

For an RPG to be an RPG, it must feature the player character changing in his capabilities, be it through stat increases, skills, equipment, or some other manner. A game like Pacman, for example, would score a 0 in this aspect of RPG-ness, as your capabilities remain the same throughout the game. In DOOM, on the other hand, you collect new weapons as you progress through the game and thus change your capabilities, however this happens relatively early on with many of them, and doesn't involve player agency, not to mention it being a very simplistic system overall. Thus, it would get a number that is higher than zero, but still very low. A game like Underrail, where you increase your character's stats, gain new skills, and obtain new gear granting new capabilites would then score a very high number in this aspect of RPG-ness. To gain an exact number, all that's needed is to find the theoretical maximum that such aspects can achieve, and assign it the value of 100 on a 0 to 100 scale. To get an exact number for a game, we just need to measure where on that scale the game is.

 

[Shaki]

Easy.

1. Does it have combat?

No - it's not an RPG.

Yes -> Move to question 2.

2. Does it have character building, choosing attributes, perks, etc?

No - it's not an RPG.

Yes -> Move to question 3.

3. Does it have a main quest to follow, and are majority of encounters hand-crafted?

No - it's not an RPG.

Yes -> Move to question 4.

4. On a default difficulty level (usually "normal"), can any character (or a party in party based games) created by using RNG to pick its build, finish all mandatory encounters by only right clicking enemies and using randomly selected active skills on the closest available target?

Yes -> It's garbage masquerading as RPG

No -> It's an RPG


--------------------------------------------------------

Now to rating, here is how we determine it -

1. Take the gaming journos avg rating from metacritic. (100 - journos rating)/10 = base rating of the game. Round it to the nearest whole number.
2. Now go to steam forums for the game, search for terms "too hard" and "too easy". Divide the number of results for "too hard" by number of results for "too easy". Multiply that number by 3. Round to the nearest whole number. Add it to the score.
3. If the game has companion romances take away 1 point.
4. If the game was made in USA, take away 2 poins. If the game was made in western Europe, take away 1 point. If the game was made in eastern Europe, add 1 point.
5. If Rusty likes the game, take away 1 point. If Rusty hates the game, add 1 point.

Aaaaand that's it. You got it, the final score, perfect.

Now to prove it works, some examples of scores achieved by using this system:


Disco Elysium - fails at question 1, not an RPG.

Pillars of Eternity - fails at question 4, garbage masquerading as RPG.

Pathfinder Kingmaker

1. Metascore 73. (100 - 73)/10 = 2.7 ≈ 3
2. Steam forums: Too hard = 469, too easy 442. (469/442)*3 = 3,183 ≈ 3
3. Has companion romances -1
4. Made in eastern Europe +1
5. Rusty hates it +1

Final score: 7 - not bad, decent rpg

Divinity Original Sin 2

1. Metascore 93. (100 - 93)/10 = 0.7 ≈ 1
2. Steam forums: Too hard = 593, too easy = 731. (592/731)*3 = 2,429 ≈ 2
3. Has companion romances -1
4. Made in western Europe -1
5. Rusty likes it -1

Final score: 0 - wohoo it's literal garbage

Underrail

1. Metascore 72. (100 - 72)/10 = 2.8 ≈ 3
2. Steam forums: Too hard = 94, too easy = 76. (94/76)*3 = 3,710 ≈ 4
3. No companion romances.
4. Made in eastern Europe +1
5. Rusty hates it +1

Final score: 9 - damn, nearly a masterpiece!

It's a perfect system that filters all the garbage and produces very accurate scores for RPGs. Works every time.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

3. Does it have a main quest to follow, and are majority of encounters hand-crafted?

Why does a game have to have a main quest to be an rpg? Ever heard of sandbox tabletop campaigns? Why does using an encounter table to randomly generate random encounters like in tabletop make the game not an rpg?

4. On a default difficulty level (usually "normal"), can any character (or a party in party based games) created by using RNG to pick its build, finish all mandatory encounters by only right clicking enemies and using randomly selected active skills on the closest available target?

This is kinda weird. Especially

finish all mandatory encounters by only right clicking enemies and using randomly selected active skills on the closest available target?

If anything, it just beats the point of playing the game as there's nothing to it in this case. There's one thing in regards to ensuring there are ways to win with most skillsets. It's an entirely different thing to make encounters so trivial that you don't even have to figure out how to play the game and to figure out the best timing for spells/abilities to beat it. The dev puts all sorts of options into a game, but then because the encounter is deemed mandatory they can't require the player to use the options available to them in an intelligent and well-timed manner? That's kinda ridiculous.

 

[laclongquan]

There was a list of 12 points. Each game that can score 6/12 can be considered a normal RPG. 6-8 is lite RPG, 9+ is normal, 10-12 heavy RPG. The list of requirements are completed years ago.

Codex DO have our own list of measurement~

If you dont want to check that thread

1. Character creation has some form of in-game consequences
2. Statistics which define character(s) abilities are subject to change throughout the game
3. Character(s) have skills or abilities which may improve or be altered over the course of gameplay
4. Character(s) accrue experience which can be spent or result in gaining levels or abilities
5. Character(s) accumulate items in some form of inventory, which the player can actively use (equip, sell, destroy, trade, etc.), which enhance or otherwise alter gameplay
6. Character(s) accumulate currency which may be spent to enhance the character(s) in some way (items, guild membership, training, etc.)
7. Character(s) gain levels throughout the game which result in some form of mechanical change (not just a change in character title, or description)
8. Character(s) are able to explore over terrain, water, space, etc. ('explore' refers to free movement of main character(s))
9. The game has some form of puzzle solving, which is resolved through combat, problem resolution, or some choice made by the player
10. A choice made by the player alters the narrative, or some other significant part of the game (an item is found or lost, stats or skills are gained or lost, different ending, etc.)
11. Character(s) interact with NPCs in some form of dialogue which have in-game consequences depending on what the character(s) say.
12. Optional quests (defined here as some kind of task made available after the game has started, and which can be resolved by the player before the game ends, but is not required to complete the game) are available.

 

[Not.AI]

...

So that can be classified as a proxy variable theory. It relies mostly on social proxy variables.

But many of the individuals behind them are replaced over time, we need to compensate for that. How?

Character(s) interact with NPCs in some form of dialogue which have in-game consequences depending on what the character(s) say.

But we have to quantify this. We need to measure "interact" "dialogue" "consequences" numerically.

NPCs also differ in quality dramatically across games. We need to compensate for that.

How?

 

[V_K]

How do we measure?

From the base to the tip.

 

[Shaki]

3. Does it have a main quest to follow, and are majority of encounters hand-crafted?

Why does a game have to have a main quest to be an rpg? Ever heard of sandbox tabletop campaigns? Why does using an encounter table to randomly generate random encounters like in tabletop make the game not an rpg

Because without this requirement, suddenly all the hack&slash games and roguelikes are RPGs. In tabletops you have a DM, that can lead you on a fun RPG adventure without a main quest and while utilizing only random encounters. In a video game, it's currently impossible. Can you name any games which are mostly randomized, that you feel you could genuinely call good rpgs?

I'm a big fan of Battle Brothers, it's probably my favourite game of the last decade, I have more than 2k hours in it. But I wouldn't call it an RPG.

finish all mandatory encounters by only right clicking enemies and using randomly selected active skills on the closest available target?

If anything, it just beats the point of playing the game as there's nothing to it in this case. There's one thing in regards to ensuring there are ways to win with most skillsets. It's an entirely different thing to make encounters so trivial that you don't even have to figure out how to play the game and to figure out the best timing for spells/abilities to beat it. The dev puts all sorts of options into a game, but then because the encounter is deemed mandatory they can't require the player to use the options available to them in an intelligent and well-timed manner? That's kinda ridiculous.

Go back to my post, and check the answers to that question, because you apparently mixed up the yes/no. My point was specifically, if your game can be beaten by picking random shit and usiong it randomly, then it's not really an RPG, only masquerading as one, since any choice is irrelevant and is just an illusion. Like in POE - you legit can use a random generator to pick your character builds, then use random generator to choose abilities to use, or just rightclick, and beat whole game like that, ezpz. So it's a fake RPG.

So that can be classified as a proxy variable theory. It relies mostly on social proxy variables.

But many of the individuals behind them are replaced over time, we need to compensate for that. How?

It's irrelevant, by the time this theory would be invalidated by the replacement of these individuals, there will be no need for a theory like this anymore, because you will be able to just send the question "is x game an RPG, and is it good", to your overlord AI waifu, and get an instant, irrefutable answer. And if you're a good wagecuck and don't use unapproved speech online, you might even be allowed to rent the game for a few hours of playtime.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

3. Does it have a main quest to follow, and are majority of encounters hand-crafted?

Why does a game have to have a main quest to be an rpg? Ever heard of sandbox tabletop campaigns? Why does using an encounter table to randomly generate random encounters like in tabletop make the game not an rpg

Because without this requirement, suddenly all the hack&slash games and roguelikes are RPGs. In tabletops you have a DM, that can lead you on a fun RPG adventure without a main quest and while utilizing only random encounters. In a video game, it's currently impossible. Can you name any games which are mostly randomized, that you feel you could genuinely call good rpgs?

So the reasoning here is that: "sandbox games can't be rpgs because I don't like the current lineup of sandbox rpgs." If Hack&Slash games and Roguelikes have proper rpg mechanics, then they're rpgs. No reason to pretty something like CYOA novel simulation, cutscene simulation, or dragonlance book railroad campaign simulation are required for a game to be an rpg.

Zorbus and Battlebrothers are a pretty good rpgs though.

 

[Shaki]

3. Does it have a main quest to follow, and are majority of encounters hand-crafted?

Why does a game have to have a main quest to be an rpg? Ever heard of sandbox tabletop campaigns? Why does using an encounter table to randomly generate random encounters like in tabletop make the game not an rpg

Because without this requirement, suddenly all the hack&slash games and roguelikes are RPGs. In tabletops you have a DM, that can lead you on a fun RPG adventure without a main quest and while utilizing only random encounters. In a video game, it's currently impossible. Can you name any games which are mostly randomized, that you feel you could genuinely call good rpgs?

So the reasoning here is that: "sandbox games can't be rpgs because I don't like the current lineup of sandbox rpgs." If Hack&Slash games and Roguelikes have proper rpg mechanics, then they're rpgs. No reason to pretty something like CYOA novel simulation, cutscene simulation, or dragonlance book railroad campaign simulation are required for a game to be an rpg.

Zorbus and Battlebrothers are a pretty good rpgs though.

Labels exist to make life easier. Trying to group every single game you like under RPG label for some reason, is just retarded, there is no good reason for it.

If I recommend Disco Elysium to Battle Brothers fan, because Codex decided that both are somehow RPG, do you think he will be happy? Oh, I heard you like Planescape Torment, let me recommend another game in the RPG genre - DIABLO 3? How does that make any sense to you?

Roguelikes already have a label. Hack&slash games already have a label. Tacticools already have a label. And people being fans of games under these labels, might not like anything about games traditionally put under RPG label, they're completely different experiences. "Everything I like is RPG" is a wrong approach, it's a mistake. RPG doesn't mean good. RPG means RPG.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

3. Does it have a main quest to follow, and are majority of encounters hand-crafted?

Why does a game have to have a main quest to be an rpg? Ever heard of sandbox tabletop campaigns? Why does using an encounter table to randomly generate random encounters like in tabletop make the game not an rpg

Because without this requirement, suddenly all the hack&slash games and roguelikes are RPGs. In tabletops you have a DM, that can lead you on a fun RPG adventure without a main quest and while utilizing only random encounters. In a video game, it's currently impossible. Can you name any games which are mostly randomized, that you feel you could genuinely call good rpgs?

So the reasoning here is that: "sandbox games can't be rpgs because I don't like the current lineup of sandbox rpgs." If Hack&Slash games and Roguelikes have proper rpg mechanics, then they're rpgs. No reason to pretty something like CYOA novel simulation, cutscene simulation, or dragonlance book railroad campaign simulation are required for a game to be an rpg.

Zorbus and Battlebrothers are a pretty good rpgs though.

Labels exist to make life easier. Trying to group every single game you like under RPG label for some reason, is just retarded, there is no good reason for it.

If I recommend Disco Elysium to Battle Brothers fan, because Codex decided that both are somehow RPG, do you think he will be happy? Oh, I heard you like Planescape Torment, let me recommend another game in the RPG genre - DIABLO 3? How does that make any sense to you?

Where is the argument? I don't see it.

Roguelikes already have a label.

Roguelikes can be rpgs.

Hack&slash games already have a label.

Often hack&slash games were just rpgs with the focus being on the combat. Turns out games can have multiple labels.

And people being fans of games under these labels, might not like anything about games traditionally put under RPG label, they're completely different experiences. "Everything I like is RPG" is a wrong approach, it's a mistake. RPG doesn't mean good. RPG means RPG.

Except I haven't made the same mistake you have. Whether or not you or I like something has nothing to do with whether or not it's an rpg. Also, there is no reason why an two rpgs can't be significantly distinct from eachother.

 

[Shaki]

3. Does it have a main quest to follow, and are majority of encounters hand-crafted?

Why does a game have to have a main quest to be an rpg? Ever heard of sandbox tabletop campaigns? Why does using an encounter table to randomly generate random encounters like in tabletop make the game not an rpg

Because without this requirement, suddenly all the hack&slash games and roguelikes are RPGs. In tabletops you have a DM, that can lead you on a fun RPG adventure without a main quest and while utilizing only random encounters. In a video game, it's currently impossible. Can you name any games which are mostly randomized, that you feel you could genuinely call good rpgs?

So the reasoning here is that: "sandbox games can't be rpgs because I don't like the current lineup of sandbox rpgs." If Hack&Slash games and Roguelikes have proper rpg mechanics, then they're rpgs. No reason to pretty something like CYOA novel simulation, cutscene simulation, or dragonlance book railroad campaign simulation are required for a game to be an rpg.

Zorbus and Battlebrothers are a pretty good rpgs though.

Labels exist to make life easier. Trying to group every single game you like under RPG label for some reason, is just retarded, there is no good reason for it.

If I recommend Disco Elysium to Battle Brothers fan, because Codex decided that both are somehow RPG, do you think he will be happy? Oh, I heard you like Planescape Torment, let me recommend another game in the RPG genre - DIABLO 3? How does that make any sense to you?

Where is the argument? I don't see it.

Roguelikes already have a label.

Roguelikes can be rpgs.

Hack&slash games already have a label.

Often hack&slash games were just rpgs with the focus being on the combat. Turns out games can have multiple labels.

And people being fans of games under these labels, might not like anything about games traditionally put under RPG label, they're completely different experiences. "Everything I like is RPG" is a wrong approach, it's a mistake. RPG doesn't mean good. RPG means RPG.

Except I haven't made the same mistake you have. Whether or not you or I like something has nothing to do with whether or not it's an rpg. Also, there is no reason why an two rpgs can't be significantly distinct from eachother.

I see, you're one of these people who believe that putting a dress on a man makes him a woman?

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

3. Does it have a main quest to follow, and are majority of encounters hand-crafted?

Why does a game have to have a main quest to be an rpg? Ever heard of sandbox tabletop campaigns? Why does using an encounter table to randomly generate random encounters like in tabletop make the game not an rpg

Because without this requirement, suddenly all the hack&slash games and roguelikes are RPGs. In tabletops you have a DM, that can lead you on a fun RPG adventure without a main quest and while utilizing only random encounters. In a video game, it's currently impossible. Can you name any games which are mostly randomized, that you feel you could genuinely call good rpgs?

So the reasoning here is that: "sandbox games can't be rpgs because I don't like the current lineup of sandbox rpgs." If Hack&Slash games and Roguelikes have proper rpg mechanics, then they're rpgs. No reason to pretty something like CYOA novel simulation, cutscene simulation, or dragonlance book railroad campaign simulation are required for a game to be an rpg.

Zorbus and Battlebrothers are a pretty good rpgs though.

Labels exist to make life easier. Trying to group every single game you like under RPG label for some reason, is just retarded, there is no good reason for it.

If I recommend Disco Elysium to Battle Brothers fan, because Codex decided that both are somehow RPG, do you think he will be happy? Oh, I heard you like Planescape Torment, let me recommend another game in the RPG genre - DIABLO 3? How does that make any sense to you?

Where is the argument? I don't see it.

Roguelikes already have a label.

Roguelikes can be rpgs.

Hack&slash games already have a label.

Often hack&slash games were just rpgs with the focus being on the combat. Turns out games can have multiple labels.

And people being fans of games under these labels, might not like anything about games traditionally put under RPG label, they're completely different experiences. "Everything I like is RPG" is a wrong approach, it's a mistake. RPG doesn't mean good. RPG means RPG.

Except I haven't made the same mistake you have. Whether or not you or I like something has nothing to do with whether or not it's an rpg. Also, there is no reason why an two rpgs can't be significantly distinct from eachother.

I see, you're one of these people who believe that putting a dress on a man makes him a woman?

It's apples and oranges. A game can have a variety of aspects that allow a variety of labels applied to it. Hack&Slash for example is not a genre. It's just a description of a game being combat-centric whether it's an rpg or an action game. A game can be hack&slash and still be an rpg if it meets the mechanical requirements like Icewind Dale. Whereas either you are a man or you are a woman.

 

[laclongquan]

Character(s) interact with NPCs in some form of dialogue which have in-game consequences depending on what the character(s) say.

But we have to quantify this. We need to measure "interact" "dialogue" "consequences" numerically.

NPCs also differ in quality dramatically across games. We need to compensate for that.

How?

When you mean to say NPC and quality, you mean quality of their dialog, quest content, or even the changes in their NPC stat over time, correct? In which case it's out of scope for THIS specific requirement. BUT your concern are answered, mostly, in requirement number 10, 11, and 12, and partially in req No 3.

As for quantify, we intentionally didnt list that issue, simply a case of Y/N binary choice. Why? Because if we get sidetracked into quantify any, or all, aspect of a game, it make for judging a game a super lengthy business. We just need to answer Y/N for 12 requirement/question to be sure if a game a RPG or not. Quantifying would lead that into a horribly lengthy process.

Example: if you ask how many NPCs that Character(s) interact with, in some form of dialogue which have in-game consequences depending on what the character(s) say. That would need a completor of that game to list them all. But a Y/N question just skip over that issue. And this just need a player with 10-20 hours for that game to answer, no need for a completor.

Completing a game is a 100 hour business, so it's not that easy to find many completor. And if you can not complete a game, how can you quantify an aspect of a game reliably?

 

[Not.AI]

if we get sidetracked into quantify any, or all, aspect of a game, it make for judging a game a super lengthy business. Quantifying would lead that into a horribly lengthy process.

Not necessarily. The whole method could be written as an app and just ask questions for 10 minutes rapidly then calculate the result. While providing a log for how it calculated in case people want to double check.
Or could just be a worksheet. With computers quantitative evaluation as as easy as qualitative evaluation. Has been for a long time, only question is what is the correct evaluation.

The problem with Y|N and a short list of questions is that this wrong granularity artificially eliminates most valid models of games that are mixed bags. (These are the ones everyone always debates endlessly, because everything good and bad is mostly in the interaction of a kitchen-sink of individually so-so elements.) Emergence.

Almost every RPG based on Y|N seems either much better than it really is or much worse than it really is. We gotta science our shit and get it closer to right. (Oh, and come up with error margins.)

 

[Not.AI]

Completing a game is a 100 hour business, so it's not that easy to find many completor. And if you can not complete a game, how can you quantify an aspect of a game reliably?

This is a greater challenge. It might mean people should be able to generate two or three different scores, with some parts of the model different, depending on whether they got thru 1/3, 2/3, or achieved completion.

The cases for 1/3 and 2/3 would try to predict completion score but would be marked as predictive scores. In any community average they could get lower weight.

But again, we can go beyond numbers into operators, functors, and beyond. Because why not? Game journalism is screwed anyway, let's science this shit and make it a (STEM) PhD subject. Think outside the box, go wild.

 

[laclongquan]

if we get sidetracked into quantify any, or all, aspect of a game, it make for judging a game a super lengthy business. Quantifying would lead that into a horribly lengthy process.

Not necessarily. The whole method could be written as an app and just ask questions for 10 minutes rapidly then calculate the result. While providing a log for how it calculated in case people want to double check.
Or could just be a worksheet. With computers quantitative evaluation as as easy as qualitative evaluation. Has been for a long time, only question is what is the correct evaluation.

The problem with Y|N and a short list of questions is that this wrong granularity artificially eliminates most valid models of games that are mixed bags. (These are the ones everyone always debates endlessly, because everything good and bad is mostly in the interaction of a kitchen-sink of individually so-so elements.) Emergence.

Almost every RPG based on Y|N seems either much better than it really is or much worse than it really is. We gotta science our shit and get it closer to right. (Oh, and come up with error margins.)

All that you want rest on one single aspect: Feasibility. Aka Can it be done at all?

I can tell you straight out that no, your desire cant be done. As far as 3 decades in Internet era show us: no, it can not be done. At least so far. QUantify is too demanding a feature~ Quantify is horribly demanding~

3 decades and all it achieve, here in Codex as well as elswhere like Gamefags and etc, is a set of 12 requirements I feel acceptable, with a method (y/n) that i feel doable. Hard, but doable. Unlike that quantify issue~

App is a nice idea. Rpgwatch thought so and try to do it. But i did test their app and their quality leave MUCH to be desired~ So it is still unfeasible on that aspect.

 

[luj1]

For an RPG to be an RPG, it must feature the player character changing in his capabilities

Then Disco Elysium and Pentiment are RPGs

They are not

Also that makes Quake and Need for Speed Underground also RPGs

 

[luj1]

Adding a set of rules (such as stat progression) to a game doesn't make it an RPG

Then NOLF or DotA are also RPGs

 

[thesecret1]

For an RPG to be an RPG, it must feature the player character changing in his capabilities

Then Disco Elysium and Pentiment are RPGs

They are not

Also that makes Quake and Need for Speed Underground also RPGs

Every RPG needs to feature character changing in his capabilities. However, not every game featuring player character changing in his capabilities is an RPG.

 

[Not.AI]

As far as 3 decades in Internet era show us: no, it can not be done. At least so far. Quantify is too demanding a feature~ Quantify is horribly demanding~

Do you think anybody actually really tried? Like tried really, really, really hard?

One of the reasons people even bother in other scientific or industrial fields is just because science is heavily subsidized. 300K salaries for tenure track. While before it was subsidized, most scientists were rich to begin with and super duper bored.

Internet does all it does for free. Insufficient motivation maybe.

In the immortal words of John Wheeler, "Nature isn't necessarily easy to calculate. What's easy to calculate isn't necessarily nature."

 

[Delphik]

Due to my own insecurities and the need to validate my own opinion, whatever I like and enjoy is an RPG, and whatever I don't is not.

There was a list of 12 points. Each game that can score 6/12 can be considered a normal RPG. 6-8 is lite RPG, 9+ is normal, 10-12 heavy RPG. The list of requirements are completed years ago.

Also your list is wrong and gay.