I must admit, I don't see how customization makes a game more roleplay-y. I've played quite a bit of tabletop roleplaying, and you don't always get to customize your own character. There's pre-generated characters (often used either to save time or to tie better in with the plot, think of the murder mystery genre) and there's systemless roleplaying (look into the indie roleplaying scene).
What really decides whether a game is a roleplaying game is whether you get to play a role. It's kind of in the name.
Of course it could be argued that play the roles of the protagonist in most games, but if his or her personality is set in stone, if you do not actually get to decide how they should react to something then it isn't a roleplaying game.
Take for example The Longest Journey. TLJ has incredible amounts of sci-fi and fantasy elements, there's a deep lore and lots of plot. However you only get to act as the pre-scripted character. You can choose different dialogue choices, but you HAVE to choose the ones the game designers decided to resolve the conflicts. Hell, during the final moments in the game, [spoiler]when you interact with the manifestation of your own traumatized psyché[/spoiler] there's still only one way to resolve the situation.
On the other hand, take Planescape: Torment. You play a pre-generated character, but you get to decide how that character evolves. How to resolve conflicts. Whether or not to run from a fight.
Diablo does not allow you to have personality, The Sims does. The SIms is more like an RPG than Diablo ever was. Even if there's no plot or point-system there's still the main thing to be classified as a roleplaying game. - You get to play a role.

When I think of "true" RPGS, I consider the following:

1. Deep Character customization. You are not just picking from male and female versions of barbarian. You are actually choosing a character, class, and stats to focus on during the game. Complete control of your initial character is optional, but if you can make your guy mentally handicapped with godly strength, then that's a bonus. Also it is not a "true" rpg if you are forced to start with a set character, even if you have the choice to level him up anyway you want.

2. Good, "epic" story with hard decisions to make. When you role play through a game, you need these choices to make. And, you make these choices not by what "you" would do, but by what "your character" would do.

3. An equally deep leveling process.

4. Loot. Either from quests, or from drops, but being able to get new armor and weapons and equip them on your character is essential to a "true" RPG.

I think that about sums it up. So, with these points in mind, these are the "True" RPGs that I can think of. Keep in mind I haven't played some of the Classic RPGS of the past.

Baldur's Gate 1 +2
Fallout 1 +2
Elder Scrolls Series - I only played Morrowind and Oblivion, but both of those are "true" rpgs
Neverwinter Nights 1 + 2
Icewind Dale 1 + 2

Games that are not "true" RPGs

Most JRPGs - like Final Fantasy.
Deus Ex
and others, but my mind is blank now.


Looking at the criteria, I struggle to find a modern 3D "true" rpg other than the Elder Scrolls.

Lol, I love the discussion!
First a point about FF games. When I was a teen i rented 7th saga from blockbuster and played it and loved it. I loved how you could "select your character from a starting lineup". This was much like the original or first "rpg" I played, Ultima4Quest of the avatar.(NES). Before that I played shadowgate, and adventure game. Then when i got the $$ to buy a snes game, I decided instead to buy final fantasy 6(a game I never played). I was disapointed that you couldnt choose your character, but as the game progressed the fact that you could play as any of the party members suited me. I really enjoyed ff6, 8, and 11. Never played 7, and got bored of 10 after the first few minutes :( dont knwo why.

Every ultima i ever played after 4, i hated, because I expected it to be like 4 where you could select your character and you started in a different city depending on the character you selected. However I started to tolorate FF games because I accepted that they were focused on storytelling, and a robust story is hard without a static character(unless your the elder scolls hehe)

See, the more you have of this:
The less you're going to get of this:
By your standards, Planescape or Witcher are not true roleplaying games. However, those are the games that use pre-set character to their fullest and whatever path of roleplaying you pick, world is always going to react accordingly - and your choices have far bigger impact than in games where you can choose whatever you please. So, basically, how does reduced emphasis on one RPG element and increased emphasis on other make a game not RPG?
Well, the elder scrolls doesn't really have robust story related to your character, it just has robust lore and background.

Yeah, there is a flaw in the argument. Some of the greatest rpgs ever made don't fall into my definition of a "true" rpg. I'm not saying that games that are not "true" are not good, just that they fall into a different category.

I'm basically splitting hairs over here trying to define the difference between games that allow you to create a character versus those that don't.

I do get the difference, basically those that allow you to create a character let you make your own story and those that don't only let you intervene into 'their' story. What I don't understand is why would one approach be less 'RPG' than another - the games that don't let you create a character and give you a predefined one are usually much more focused on the story, decisions and their impact, and no RPG where you can create a character can make those aspects as deep (Fallout: New Vegas probably coming the closest of the modern RPGs, it's decisions, their impact and it's general story is still not as deep as The Witcher's however.)

What I don't get is why it's so important for an RPG to be a "true" RPG to get respect.

Can you imagine arguments over true strategy games or true first-person shooters?

Yes :P The debate on where the line between strategy & tactics goes, and which games are strategy games and which games are tactics games has been going on for a long time.

This is just my opinion, but my reasoning was that every game where you play as a defined character is more or less a role playing game. When you play Splinter Cell, you're playing as Sam Fisher and making some decisions through out the game as you play the role of Sam. Some of these action games even have "rpg elements" which is just another way of saying that you can level up set skills or attributes while not changing the essence of the character.

The "true" RPGs allow you do define the player character totally and go through the story making the decisions that feel right for your character. Of course the story in these games are not as focused as they could be since they have to account for a whole variety of player characters.

Maybe 'true rpg" is not the right term for this. But, there is definitely a difference between Mass Effect and Skyrim. Both are great RPGs, have great stories, and great decisions. I'm just trying to point out the difference between the two.

I'm just wondering why the labelling is so crucial.

Say I create the most awesome tactics game ever, but I call it a strategy game. Everyone screams THIS ISN'T A STRATEGY GAME! THIS IS A FUCKING TACTICS GAME!!1!

Same goes for RPGs. There's always an insinuation that a game is absolute crap regardless of its overall mechanics if it's labelled wrong.

Maybe it's just that RPGs are the favorite genre of the smartass geek. And they often require some serious love for sorting and categorizing, e.g. when organizing your inventory. ;)

At least the debate of what is strategy and what is tactics can be grounded in real world terminology.
The definition of RPG though, is almost totally arbitrary.

See, but a game like The Witcher is mainly focused on dialogues and decisionmaking. I'll take it from a different angle: When I'm playing The Witcher, my Geralt is most probably substantialy different person from someone else's Geralt. I have roleplayed him in a certain way and this - not levelling system, not fights, but this - is the core mechanic of the game - dialogues and roleplaying. The same applies to Planescapes: There are stats and level-ups, but the core mechanic is decisionmaking and forming the main character, roleplaying. You have mentioned Splinter Cell - I have never played those, but I'll take a similar example, Singularity. It's FPS that's got a big decision at the end that changes outcome - I actually think that this gives it very slight roleplaying elements, the core gameplay is still shooting. I think that Splinter Cell is a similar case.

Then we have adventure games - I am yet to encounter one that actually lets you to form your character based on your decisions and core gamplay is still not there. So, basically, if PST and TW aren't RPGs, what are them? Do keep in mind that their gameplay is built upon and completely revolves around role-playing, with smot other aspect being secondary.

Maybe labelling is crucial because strategy and tactics are different? Or maybe just disregard catergorization altogether and call everything an action game.

A game is crap if it's mislabeled? Who said this?

Maybe a game can find it's audience better if it was labelled properly. Like if I was looking for a tactics game, then labelling your tactics game as a tactics game instead of as a strategy game might be more helpful and encourage me to play your game. It might also help to discourage people who aren't looking for tactics games from playing your tactics game and bitching about your tactics game because they were looking for a strategy game. Just saying.