You're viewing a single thread.
Intentionally lists RPGs not made in US
"Why doesn't my list have RPGs made in the US?!?"
ಠ_ŕ˛
Elder scrolls, Fallout, Red Dead Redemption, and Mass Effect would all like a word
RDR isn't an RPG, it's an action-adventure game.
I concur on the rest.
I don't think those genres are mutually exclusive. I haven't played RDR1 but RDR2 is definitely an Action-Adventure RPG. You level up Arthur's stats throughout the game and can choose different moral paths that affect the ending. That's playing a role.
Likewise, I haven't played RDR2 (started, but never got past the first 30 min or so), but RDR1 is pretty much just GTA in the wild west. You can buy stuff (like GTA), but I don't recall any stats to speak of, it's very much an action-adventure. Wikipedia claims RDR2 is an action-adventure, so I assume it's closer to the Yakuza series in terms of character customization than RPGs, and Yakuza games are very much action-adventure (despite having some skills to level up).
Both RDRs do have stats though
Stats don't make a game an RPG tho, but they're a common element. A game may borrow some aspects of RPGs, but the core of the game needs to be those RPG elements to be an RPG.
RDR is an action-adventure game at its core, any stats or equipment is just tacked on.
I mean, define 'RPG' because to me, any time you choose how your character evolves and grows as the game progresses through a story, that's an RPG.
There isn't really a single, clear definition of "RPG" because it's a really big genre, and a lot of games have taken mechanics that used to define RPGs. What defines it for me is whether the development of the character (in terms of stats, equipment, etc) is central to the gameplay.
For example, Elder Scrolls games are absolutely RPGs. You customize a character, assign stats, collect equipment, and game interactions are largely based on stats. The whole focus of the game is on that character development. JRPGs push the limits of an RPG somewhat because there's a lot less player interaction with the stat systems (i.e. number just goes up), but the gameplay is highly dependent on those stats. As you stray further, we get into ARPGs, which frequently focus more on the action than the role-playing aspects, but the role-playing aspects are still very central to the game (e.g. Diablo, Ys, etc).
RDR, on the other hand, doesn't really rely on stats for gameplay. You can completely ignore the stats and enjoy the game. There also aren't really any meaningful choices when it comes to how the player develops the character. Yeah, I guess if you do bad stuff you'll get a bounty or whatever, but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about gating off parts of the games because you chose to pursue one stat over another.
A lot of games borrow elements from RPGs (e.g. looting, skill progression, etc), so there's no clear definition that clearly delineates which ones are or are not part of a given genre. Genre labels are supposed to be informative about what to expect in a game, and me describing RDR as an action-adventure game is a lot more informative than calling it an RPG.
So if your character abilities aren't just multipliers for a number-based system under the hood, it's not an RPG?
Generally speaking, yeah.
There are no hard and fast rules about assigning genres, it's more about which genre is it closest to. And the closer you get to D&D, the more it resembles an RPG.
Isn't RDR exactly as much of an RPG as Mass Effect. Neither gives you any real control over the main story, though I guess Mass Effect makes you think you do better. The sidequests are about as open, and neither do you get to choose your character.
I don't know if I do actually think RDR is an RPG, but that opinion is shared for Mass Effect, The Witcher, and so many others. They've taken the ability point systems from RPGs, but they're still action adventure games with RPG mechanics.
I consider Mass Effect and The Witcher to be action RPGs, more similar to games like Ys and Diablo than games like Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy. The focus of those games are less on your character development (stats and whatnot) and more on the action, but the character development does matter quite a bit.
However, in RDR, your character development really doesn't matter at all, at least in the first, and I'm guessing the second as well.
So:
- Mass Effect - ARPG
- The Witcher - ARPG
- RDR - action-adventure
There's more in 2 than 1 had. Most of it isn't magic, like The Witcher or Mass Effect (though Dead Eye I'd say is magic), but there are a bunch of skills to learn, as well as weapons to purchase that give essentially Stat upgrades and unlocks to find. They're more diegetic in RDR2 than the other games listed, but I'd say that's better for an RPG, not worse.
They are not ARPGs though. That's Diablo type games. They're Action Adventure games, with RPG elements. I don't think they should be classified with the RPGs because they have very different goals, even though they use similar mechanics.
You don't need magic or even combat to be an RPG, you need the systems in the games to be dependent on stats/dice rolls. Disco Elysium, for example, is absolutely an RPG, and there's no magic or combat in that game. One of the big giveaways that a game is an RPG is if there's something you cannot do because your character's abilities aren't high enough. And not a combat move or something, but actual progression in some sense (dialog options, areas you can't enter, bosses you can't defeat, etc).
What makes Diablo an ARPG is that it's an even mix of action and RPG. It's unfair to call it an RPG because so much of the gameplay depends on player maneuvering, but it's unfair to call it an action game because there's so much depth to the skill tree. Other examples of ARPG are:
- Ys - basically, Zelda with JRPG-style stats
- Dark Souls - they have their own genre now, but I still think ARPG fits to a T
- Hogwarts Legacy - lots of RPG elements, but gameplay is action first
I think Diablo might be different enough from core ARPGs to define its own subgenre: loot-based, ARPG dungeon crawler. ARPG is perhaps my favorite genre, but I honestly don't like Diablo that much. My favorite game series is Ys, which I think strikes a perfect balance between JRPG elements and action; I find myself taking the "if I can't beat the boss, I need to grind a bit" approach, but I can also just "git gud" if I really don't want to grind out a couple levels (might double the length of the boss battle though). In a game like FF, you just can't make up for being under-leveled after a certain point, whereas with action/action-adventure games, levels either don't exist or don't really impact progression (they may add cool abilities though).
So that's why I think RDR isn't an RPG. Even if it has abilities, they're really not central to the game in the same way they are with other RPGs. You're not going to lose a boss battle because you're low on some stat, nor will you be barred from some content, you'll just have to do more minigames to increase it. So it's more of an immersive action-adventure, where you need to interact with the games systems to continue the adventure (eat, wear the right clothes, etc), and if you get it wrong, just sleep and continue. It's similar to Zelda: Breath of the Wild, which is absolutely an action-adventure game, and it borrows some elements from the survival genre.
I know you don't need magic to be an RPG. I was pointing out that the thing that makes the other two different from RDR is that they have magic, and not much else, so RDR is an RPG if they are. You will absolutely lose a boss fight if your stats are too low (and you aren't skillful enough). Those stats are largely gun/equipment related though, not just stats on a stat block. The stats are largely diegetic, but they still exist.
Every modern game has stats though. They're in everything, even things like Doom. I'm pretty sure no one is going to argue Doom is an RPG despite this though, so obviously stats are not the thing that makes something and RPG. They're a key mechanic all RPGs must have, but they are not the factor that makes something and RPG. I would argue being able to define your character is the thing that makes an RPG, but I think the conversation is lost. I don't think there can be a "proper" definition anymore with how it's been applied to so many things.
Defining your character also isn't core, since most JRPGs have a fixed character you play as.
But yeah, it's a matter of "which genre is this closest to." RDR is closest to an action-adventure game, because the core gameplay loop is on a mix of action (skill-based gunfights) and adventure (interaction with set pieces). RPGs tend to have a core gameplay loop based on character progression (leveling up, ability unlocks, etc) and interaction is generally with character abilities.
RDR's abilities generally fall under the survival/management end of things, they're interesting from an immersion aspect, but you're not actively looking to level up some ability to solve some problem or unlock some content. In BotW, you also have "levels" (hearts and stamina containers), but increasing those aren't really necessary to do anything, they just make the game a bit easier. Likewise with equipment, you don't need the master sword, but it makes things a bit easier if you have it. The OG Zelda was a bit closer to an ARPG with equipment acting as "levels" (blue and later red rings to reduce damage, white and magical sword to increase attack, etc, each of which marks a stage of progression in the game), but it's still an action-adventure because the game doesn't revolve around that character progression.
So I'd call RDR2 an action-adventure with survival/RPG mechanics, because the core loop is around action and adventure.