You know what? Leveling up your character as only rpg option sucks so much for us, rpg fans. Who agrees with me?

What do you mean? Leveling up your character but not the rest of your party sucks? Or not being able to change the story path through actions and dialog sucks? I agreee in both cases

RPG refers to a game that accounts for the gamer's role playing. You can experience the story as a barbarian, and the world allow you to interact and resolve it's problems(quests) as a barbarian. For example using raw strength to move a tree that was blocking the road. Or you can play as a mage, levitating that tree out of the way. Or you play as a high intelligence character, convincing that barbarian you've met in the previous town to clear the road for you. Or you play as a gambler, paying some dwarfs to clear the road. It's the multitude and frequency of such options that transform any game into a RPG. What's called choices and consequences.

An RPG is different than the Hack and Slash games, ineptly labeled as ARPGs, where you kill enemies with melee weapons because you play "the role" of a barbarian, or with spells if you play "the role" of a mage. It's so unfortunate that nowadays any game that allows you to increase the Strenght of a character is called an _RPG.

Second, as in 'can only increase str/level, not change a thing otherwise'. But I also agree to the former, even though I greatly enjoy NWN Diamond (!), it's still very nice game...
Sooo true! Especially bolded part.

There are so many problems with this.

First, when it comes co computer games, your first sentence is incorrect. RPG refers to the gameplay style, in which you go around and fight enemies in turn based combat (as opposed, to say, action games, where combat isn't turn based). RPGs also have a clear separation between the player's ability and the character's ability; the player tells the character what to do, and the character then performs the action according to their ability.

Then you misuse the term "ARPG"; regardless of whether you consider those games RPGs, that term clearly refers to games with both action and RPG elements. It has nothing to do with whether the game has what you call "role playing" or is just a simple (or complex) hack and slash.

Consider the following problems with your definitions:
1. Zelda: Majora's Mask is not an RPG, but it does have choices and consequences.
2. Wizardry (1) and Final Fantasy (1) are RPGs, but there aren't any choices and consequences in those two games. Those two games are clearly not ARPGs, as they lack action elements.

Okay... I can't do this. Pick a clear direction, stick to it, and lets talk exclusively around that, because I can't response to so many scattered points. It would take me hours to correctly address everything. And I don't have the time for that. I'll give it my best this time, though it's clearly an incomplete response, but no more than that.

What are you saying, RPGs can only be turn based? What about Witcher 3?

I meant to say that hack and slash are incorrectly called ARPGs, and as a result only end up diluting the meaning of the term. What do you mean I miss-used the term ARPG. How exactly did I misuse it?

Just because a game expands in order to includes elements from other game genres, in order to appeal to a greater audience, doesn't mean that it invalidates the original definitions of the game genres. You mean to tell me that just because Mario Bros is clearly a platformer game, and yet currently the games have evolved to include collectathon elements, the original term of collectathon, used to describe games such as Banjo-Kazooie, was incorrect?

Final fantasy was severely influenced by Wizardry, and it's clearly labeled as jRPG. Wizadry is a game 30 years old game, and one of the first attempts to translate the tabletop experience to computers. Of course it doesn't have all the elements that have come to define the RPG, currently cRPG, genre. Mostly because it was among the first, and then because the game development wasn't anywhere near evolved enough to allow a proper implementation.

Haven't played the game yet but you're the first person I see who refers to it as an RPG.

As far as I'm concerned that's a sandbox action-adventure.

Well, flight simulators were around very early and pretty much main stream back in the 80's and early 90's, doesn't change the fact that they are all but niche these days.

And the fact that RPGs were around so early can be mostly explained with the simple fact that the people who first had access to computers and the necessary know-how to develop software AND wanted to use all of that for fun stuff were college students - the overlap with nerd culture and D&D is quite obvious. So of course CRPGs were around very early if only due to the developers' personal preferences. The same largely applies to the consumers of video games at the time.

it's more an interactive movie with story of a mental disorder, but you make decisions for her that effect the game in several ways, that's by definition an RPG

Again you make choices for the character that effect the world for either good or bad, it may be a action adventure but it has elements of rpg

That's the thing, "has elements of" isn't the same thing as "is" to me, not by a long shot.

deleted

RPG mechanics have kind of taken over every genre at this point, so obviously it's not a niche market in total. The hardcore strategic "true RPG" though? That's very niche, but I think you could say that about damn near every genre. I'm really into stealth games and I assure you not a ton of people have heard of titles like Death to Spies or Styx.

@StingingVelvet: Styx sounds fun - thanks for bringing it to my attention!

can't be any worse than the band :P