Four letters only:

V.A.T.S.

Long scripted events that give you an instant game over if you mess up. Scripted sequences can be good but I often mess up on these and having to repeat it over and over ruins whatever effect they were going for.

The slow-mo feature of Fallout? What's so bad about it?

Last I heard, Fallout didn't have any such feature. Maybe you're talking about one of the game's sequels?

These two things seem to be in contradiction. If the results of something is based on a characters ability, and that character remains static in strength, they would always succeed or fail every time and the game would not work/the check would be pointless.

By saying this is a defining feature of "RPG" and I presume you prefer the genre as you define it of "RPG", is that to say you prefer games that do checks based on characters skills and not player performance? If so, why?

Does this mean you think Skyrim is not a RPG?

I mean if we are talking about a game like Disco Elysium that lacks combat in the first place and doesn't have a level system AFAIK, that kind of story growth and interaction is necessary. But then Disco Elysium is the ultimate in interactive story, which is my definition of RPG.

RPG does stand for Role Playing Game. Role essentially means story. I don't see how you can justify calling any game a "RPG" if it lacks a interactive story.

Random chance is allowed; what isn't allowed is the *player's* skill.

As for why I define this RPG this way, it is to clearly distinguish them from games where the deciding factor is the player's skill. (Note that this isn't about what I prefer; it's about what I am looking for if I am specifically looking for an RPG.)

Yes, Skyrim (and Oblivion for that matter) are definitely not RPGs by my definition.

Interactive story is a visual novel element, not an RPG element.

When it comes to computer games, RPG has meant something different from what its letters stand for. In particular, games like Wizardry have always been considered RPGs, and early Wizardry plots are really just excuse plots (as in, with about as much complexity as the plot of the original Super Mario Bros.).
.

You talk like the ultimate authority but you can be sure that most people will disagree with you, like all the industry for one and most of the fans for the other.

Interactive story and a visual novel are not the same thing at all. A visual novel is generally not interactive, if it were, you wouldn't call it a "visual novel".

Many early mainstream "RPG"'s were shit and not really RPG's IMO. Without story it's boring grinding of levels.

Again I ask you, why do you dislike player skill in games? You don't want to be challenged at all? Why not?

Visual novels are interactive; it's what separates them from kinetic novels.
I don't dislike player skill in games; I just dislike the "RPG" label being applied to such games.

There is an accessibility issue here; some people can't play action games but can play RPGs.

* The quality of the game has nothing to do with its genre. There are great games that are not RPGs, and there are horrible games that are RPGs.
* Without story, the you still have an actual game, and it's not always "boring grinding of levels". The leveling up process can be fun and challenging (see Dragon Quest 2's Rhone Plateau for an example), and there might be powerful bosses that the player's party has to think in order to defeat. (Also, note that choosing the party and the build/equipment for each character is also part of the challenge.)

(Sometimes the task of choosing actions for each party member can be enough of a challenge to make the game hard without actually requiring player skill.)

Who said I was talking about FO 1?

Nonsense. You know kinetic means motion? Otherwise known as action. You'd label something more interactive as "visual" and less interactive as "kinetic"? That is some horrible naming sense.

If the genre solely exists for those that are hand eye coordination impaired, then what you would call "kinetic novel" would be "RPG" So would movies, the other "kinetic novel" "game" "RPG". You don't need hand eye coordination to watch a movie.

But game genra's IMO are about fan interest. And you can be sure that deep stories are of great interest to many "RPG fans". If someone introduced a triple A title without a story but fit your other metrics and released it as a "RPG":, I think they'd get so burned on sales it wouldn't be funny, and then it'd be hilarious. There is many players who want their games to have deep story that they can immerse themselves in. If the genre "RPG" doesn't work to signal that to them, then what genre label possibly could?

It may not make sense, but that is the convention that has developed.


You referred to "Fallout" (without a number), which is the name of the first game in the series.

"Fallout 3" refers to a different game (one that arguably might not even be in the same genre).

What about games with turn based tactical maps? To you, they shouldn't be labeled "RPG" since it depends on player skill? Or just hand eye coordination requirements is what you think disqualifies as "RPG"?

Traditionally the base name of a series, refers to all releases under that name. Obviously the first isn't called that originally, but it is called that latter. For example, the first Startrek was just called "Startrek" but now I believe it's acronym is among many fans ST TOS (the original series) Like you wouldn't say "I'm a Startrek fan", and expect people to understand you're only a fan of the original series. That isn't the convention of these terms.

Regen health...i can't stand it in multiplayer

What about single player?

What if regenerating health is the result of picking up a temporary power-up, or the result of a spell cast by a player?

What if the game is player versus enemy, and only players regenerate health (so you aren't fighting opponents that regen health)?


I would currently say it's what you are referring to as "hand eye coordination" that disqualifies the game as an RPG.

To put it another way, my current definition is intended to count Fell Seal: Arbiter's Mark as an RPG, but not the Ys series.

(If you aren't familiar with Fell Seal, it's similar to Final Fantasy Tactics, enough so that nobody would classify the two games into different genres.)

The Devouring Swarm approves, plenty of delicious pops going around!

The theory-crafters tend to dislike Cyto-Revitalization Centers, due to the time it takes to help growing the 2 (then 5) extra pops it is actually diverting from more productive work (a.k.a. alloys production). But these theory-crafters are boring people who are playing the game wrong, so I do not care about their spreadsheets and keep building Cyto-Revitalization Centers on my planets ;P

I hate sticky cover systems. Can't think of a single game where this works in a mechanically satisfying way.
Just like in tabletop RPGs, classic CRPGs like Wizardry have a scenario where the game takes place and the player choices are made through action in the game, not pre-determined dialogue options.

Unfortunately, so many players who were introduced to RPGs by the likes of Diablo, WoW and Mass Effect think that RPGs mean loot grind, dialogue choices and quest logs.