Our good friends at Wikipedia say:
a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters, or take control of one or more avatars, in a fictionalsetting. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
Well, lets first get into what spurs this question about a term that most of us have already defined in some way shape or form. This comic from VGCats.com is what raises the question.
Simply put, I no longer consider the traditional JRPG (Japanese RPG) formula (a-la Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy) an RPG game. I am rather hesitant to make such a clear assertion though as I feel it would offend many of the fandom. The JRPG has always been "a long walk down a straight hallway" regardless of any illusions any of us might have. Does that prevent the game from being an RPG? Lets cross reference with the definition we picked up.
Is the JRPG a 'game'? Yes. There is player effort involved, and all of those qualities that Juuls talks about.
Is the player assuming the role of one or more characters? Yes, you have your main character or a party of characters.
Is it in a fictional setting? It's a video game right? Then, yes, it's fictional.
Formal System of rule/guidelines? Yes, more complex than I would like to think about, but certainly yes.
Actions taken by players succeed or fail according to said system? Yes it does.
So by strict stringent definitions, the JRPG is indeed an RPG. But that gets me thinking: What game is NOT an RPG?
To answer this concisely, we can strip a few of these qualifiers out.
Fictional Setting, Formal System of Rules, Player Effort.
These three qualities are necessary for all video games worth mentioning.
So the only real question lies in weather or not the player is assuming the role of character or characters.
In this sense, is not Counter-Strike an RPG? How about Team Fortress 2? The player is assuming the role of a soldier with weapons and they go about controlling their avatar to play the game. This goes for any FPS. Yes, there are RPG-FPS hybrids such as Duex Ex, the entire Theif series, Half-Life single player modes, but what prevents the multiplayer from being considered an RPG as well? Certainly not the definition of Role Playing Games. I could go into the exact same argument with RTS games where the player is assuming the role of a military commander and managing tens if not hundreds of individual unit avatars.
To stretch this line of thought further, I was playing Poker Blitz on Facebook. Normally such a game is not an RPG by virtue of the fact that it is the player who is playing the game directly. The player is not assuming any sort of "role". However, one of the first things that happens in the game is that the player creates an avatar to represent himself in the virtual environment. So now, the player controls an avatar. Does this minor cosmetic change make an RPG? Pretty silly huh?
Now lets drop out of the video game world and hop into pen/paper and boardgames. The traditional RPG revolves around pencil/paper, rulebooks, and dice. How about a boardgames? Players usually control characters around the board, so does that mean all boardgames are thus RPGs as well? I can see an argument made for Clue, but as we descend down to games like Scrabble it becomes more of a stretch.
If we look at all of these examples, the moment there is a "character" or "avatar" involved in the game, we're dealing with elements of an RPG. In this sense, the term RPG is far too broad. How do we determine whether a game is an RPG? Clearly, no one views most of the generic FPS games to be RPGs, nor do they think that of RTSs or boardgames.
Back to the top then, the JRPG. Why do we consider such games to be RPGs. Because they contain iconic references to RPG terminology such as Hit Points and Experience Points? Seems rather silly again. Hit point is another work for Health or Stamina or "something that will cause you to lose the game if you don't have some". Experience points are merely a measure of progression. The typical Zelda game never had EXP, instead money, and gaining better items was the form of progression.
I suppose the better question is: what do I expect out of an RPG? Why do I play them? I play them because they give me freedom to create the character I wish, and make the decisions I want.
JRPGs do not give me these liberties. Most CRPGs (computer RPGs) don't either. That is the nature of dealing with videogames though. They lack the imagination of the human mind. However, it is the human mind that pre-programs these games. Variety is possible and enough variety grants the illusion of freedom. So if JRPGs do not have these qualities, what CRPGs do?
Most of the classics actually. The Baldur's Gate trilogy certainly does. As with any videogames, I do not have total freedom, but there are distinct choices I have in character creation which alters playstyle and decision making when it comes to party member selection. In character interaction as well, I have a dialog menu rife with choices. Not always the exact response I would give, but often there is one close enough to satisfy me. Lastly, the storyline is flexible. There's actually a randomized manner in which side quests appear, and it is also dependent on party members present, which generates a unique sequence of events every play through. The manner in which one replies to specific NPCs will change the flow of the story as well.
In stark contrast, the JRPG formula locks the player into a pre-conceived character with personality and statistics already laid out. Sure, there might be some options when it comes to advancing statistics or choice of equipment, however, the progression of the game leaves little to ones imagination. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed FF 5 and FF:Tactics more than the rest of the games. The class system allowed the player to customize the characters to their hearts content. Moreover, the storyline for the game is locked. There is one ending, possibly with minor variations (hello FF6, did you wait for Shadow? Recruit Umaro and Gogo?), but the story doesn't change. Perhaps this is why Chrono Trigger and Ogre Battle stood out in my mind as superior specimens in the atrocity that is your standard JRPG. Actions have consequences. These are two examples that rose above the standard JRPG.
In conclusion, we can see that not all JRPGs are bad. It's not even that they have bells and whistles that mask the bad. In fact, some have the 'good' qualities of RPG gameplay that we look for. However, the basic JRPG model is a shame to the term Role Playing Game. The basic model is devoid of any player effort beyond power-leveling and thus would probably be more enjoyable as a movie.
RPGs should strive to grant freedom and choice. This is perhaps why Bioware RPGs sell so well. All of the Neverwinter Nights games, Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, ect. They all contain freedom of character choice. The player is not stuck with an annoying main character that they cannot get rid of. Nor are players stuck with characters that do not fit their playstyle. Varied storyline that combines a bit of randomness and player control over how the story develops. It's times like this when I compare the new Bioware games to their contemporary RPGs and wonder if I'm just being nostalgic in thinking how awesome Baldur's Gate was. Maybe Bioware should release a Baldur's Gate remake with an updated game/graphics engine. Then we could see how well it compares to today's RPGs.
