zeogold: I was making a joke. GOG has a track record of rejecting games with the excuse of it being "too niche". It's happened so often that it's become an inside joke around here.

dtgreene: What I would consider to be the most pure of RPGs are definitely niche at this point.

The first signs of RPGs becoming more mainstream, back in the late 1990s, were really the result of the games, in a sense, becoming less pure. In terms of JRPGs (like Final Fantasy 7), you have games putting in a heavy focus on story over gameplay, with excessive amounts of cutscenes; this is also when minigames (almost all of which are not RPGs) became common in the genre. With WRPGs (like Baldur's Gate), the game has moved away from being turn-based, and you also see some rather complex dialog trees, which feel more like the sort of thing that would fit better in a visual novel or adventure game.

Even later, because people complained about the random invisible encounters common in JRPGs, developers started making the enemies visible, but had them move in real-time, which again makes the game less "pure". (One counterpoint here; the SaGa series has had visible enemies moving in real-time since the Super Famicom days, and that series is generally considered niche; as much as I adore that series, the visible enemies moving in real-time is actually one of the things I *don't* like about the series.)

So, "pure" RPGs, as I am calling them in this post, are a niche genre; those that adopt aspects from other genres, often at the expense of their RPG-ness, are the ones that tend to be more mainstream.

yoshino: Sounds like the most pure RPG are Wizardly 1-3 or Pool of Radiance, or Ultima?

BlueMooner: I think this history is important because I see some gamers today defining CRPGs as having to do with levelling and stats. That to me is completely wrong.

BlueMooner: As others have said, it depends on how your define CRPG.

I grew up playing actual RPGs, games like Dungeons and Dragons. It was only after RPGs were popular and computer gaming rose up that we got CRPGs. I think this history is important because I see some gamers today defining CRPGs as having to do with levelling and stats. That to me is completely wrong.

D&D had levels and stats, sure, but D&D was first and foremost about story. It was about having an exciting campaign with interesting characters in exotic locations or situations and, most importantly, a story that you could shape. To me, what makes something a CRPG is a game with a great story and detailed plot, a plot that you can alter by your choices, and combat. VTMB and Deus Ex didn't have levels, and they're both great examples IMO. They also had choices you could make along the way leading to different endings. Stats and levels are immaterial.

Point N Clicks (PNCs) aren't RPGs because while there is a story, you can't change any of it. It's basically a visual novel with tons of clicking. Story, plot, choices with significant consequences.... these to me are what makes a CRPG. Fallout had a great story, BG had a great story Gothic had a great story. All had stories, all had choices. Combat is there to keep you from getting bored with all the talking and reading, and all the talking and reading is there to make the combat meaningful and significant. If you're killing generic enemies and just fighting for no plot reason (aka grinding) then that's not a CRPG element, that's an FPS element.

The whole aspect of the "role-playing" in the name was the ability to create a character of your imagination... kind or cruel, polite or trollish, pugnacious or pacifistic. Obviously programming can only offer so many options, but being able to play a character YOU want in a game, instead of a pre-defined one, is inherent to the genre. In all the games above, you have options on how to shape your character, both in combat and dialog.

BeatriceElysia: and what are mainstream games?

BeatriceElysia: Sorry if I came up ignorant, I'm not really informed about what is popular among gamers...

swsoboleski89: no. rpg elements have completely taken over gaming.

dtgreene: The way I see it, CRPGs are not defined in the same manner as TRPGs (the T stands for "Tabletop" here). Story does not make a video game an RPG; many other genres, like visual novels, have stories. In fact, the game I am playing right now (Gurumin: A Monstrous Adventure) is an action game, but yet it has as much story as a typical JRPG.

Also, a game actually needs to be in first person and have you wield a ranged weapon for it to be classified as an FPS. Killing enemies and just fighting for no reason can happen in games that are clearly not FPSes, such as the original Dragon Quest (rpg-style stat based combat) and Zelda 2 (sidescroller once combat has started). So no, that doesn't define it as an FPS.

In any case, the way I see it when it comes to video games:
* Story, particularly when told through cutscenes, is a visual novel element.
* Being able to alter said plot is, again, a visual novel element (and is what separates visual novels from kenetic novels, which are pure cutscene with no branching).
* The one aspect that is actually unique (or at least almost unique) to RPGs and isn't found in other video game genres is turn-based stat-based combat. The only other genre to have anything else like it is the turn-based strategy genre, and there a unit's stats are typically fixed, unlike in an RPG.

Remember that games like Wizardry 1 and Rogue are generally considered RPGs, and the plot in those two games are really just excuse plots.

paladin181: This is not really correct. Several RPGs aren't even turn-based. Some of the best ones ever aren't. in JRPGS, FFVI and later, Star Ocean, Chrono Trigger, and many other excellent RPGs, Baldur's Gate, Dragon Age, the Elder Scrolls, The Witcher....

Turn-based battle isn't close to a defining concept in RPGs. Rather I see developing your character through stat growth and equipment optimizations are more facets of RPGs than anything turn-based. I LOVE TB RPGs. I love Pseudo TB RPGs. But not being TB doesn't exclude a game from being a RPG.

dtgreene: How would you categorize a game that played just like one of the games you mentioned, except without any leveling up, stat growth, or equipment? How about a game that played like a typical Dragon Quest game, but again without any stat growth or equipment upgrades?

Also, would you agree that not having action gameplay doesn't exclude a game from being an action game? (I consider that to be equivalent to your claim that "not being TB doesn't exclude a game from being a RPG.".)