Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Is Rock Band an RPG?
Okay, if you put a gun to my head and forced me to name my absolute favorite game of the last year (or so), it'd have to be Rock Band. Yes, I'm the dude who pontificates on the virtues and nuances of RPGs, who evangelizes small indie games, and spends hours and hours playing long, drawn-out strategy games and flight simulators.
But Rock Band? It was definitely my purest joy of the last year. Principally because of the multiplayer. I could get together with my family and friends, and we could air-jam to some great tunes. My daughters became acquainted with some rock & roll favorites that were even older than their dad. Single-player, the game was merely great. But with others sharing in the fantasy of being a rock star, it was absolutely brilliant. And the sequel has polished that experience to a shine.
Stephen Totilo makes the contention that Rock Band should be considered an RPG.
Ditto for Guitar Hero, Little Big Planet, and Spore.
I made the same mistake at one point, and referred to Falcon 4.0 as the best Computer Role-Playing Game I'd ever played. After all, no game immersed me in a role so deeply as that game. Playing Falcon 4.0, I was a fighter pilot. The realism, the dynamic battlefield - it was amazing. But it wasn't a role-playing game.Nearly every game, except the really abstract ones that have you matching colored objects together, gives you some kind of role to play and provides you with a fictional setting in which to play. Not long ago, I played Agatha Christie's Death on the Nile, a casual "hidden object" game where the player got to play the role of Hercule Poirot. Through finding lots of hidden objects in parts of the ship, questioning suspects, and solving simple puzzles, you won the game. Should this, too, be a role-playing game?
If so, there ain't many other kinds of games out there. Totilo is just being silly. Particularly when he recommends using an even more generic term, "Story Games" to describe what has traditionally been known as an RPG. With this punchline, I realize he isn't being serious. His complaint was about the label.
The term "role-playing game" isn't a perfect name - nearly everyone acknowledges this (except those who are diehard about trying to use the name to force a particular kind of gameplay on the genre). Historically, we started out with just "Dungeons & Dragons." As other games appeared, calling them "Games Like D&D" just didn't work, particularly as competitors entered the mix. They tried "Fantasy Wargaming." But then we had other fictional genres, so the "fantasy" didn't quite fit, and the rules had evolved quite a ways from old-school wargaming. They tried "Adventure Gaming," which almost fit, but it was too generic and seemed to apply to other types of games as well. Someone dreamed up the term, "role-playing game," and in absence of anything better, the title stuck.
While it's not perfect, it works.
But if we really want to take up Totilo's torch, we should consider other labels we can eradicate or re-apply any other misnomers in the English language. So let's get started, shall we?
"Movies" shall now apply to any medium where the objects seem to... you know, move. "Film" is also a misnomer now that we're getting digital releases and we're watching so many of them on DVD. We shall now call what was formerly known as movies or films as "Recorded Cinematic Productions." Much better, right?
"Video Game" is a dumb name, since it could apply to any game with a video component, like Scene It.
Cell phones? Okay, they still use cell sites, but they should be called, "Cell Communication, Information, and Entertainment Devices" now. CCIEDs.
While we're at it, why don't we fix that problem with us driving on a parkway and parking on a driveway, and swap those words around.
For what it's worth, here was my stab at defining what makes an RPG an RPG.
Labels: Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 8:35 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
CCIEDs sound dangerous.
I know I've read in more than one place that real-time strategy games and turn-based strategy games should actually employ strategy as opposed to tactics.
I know I've read in more than one place that real-time strategy games and turn-based strategy games should actually employ strategy as opposed to tactics.
Ah yes, the old 'you play a role in it, so it's a roleplaying game' thing. Heard it many many times.
I agree with you, basically. Maybe the name doesn't fit entirely, maybe it fits other stuff just as well, fact is, D&D got there first, D&D and its brethren took the name, you don't like it, tough.
I agree especially when confronting the so-called 'indie' rpgs that sometimes take on a haughty attitude, like they're fulfilling what being a 'roleplaying' game is better than what's come before. No, you're not. The genre is what it is, you wanna redefine it? Then find another, new name for your new deep artsy thing. In my opinion only of course.
I agree with you, basically. Maybe the name doesn't fit entirely, maybe it fits other stuff just as well, fact is, D&D got there first, D&D and its brethren took the name, you don't like it, tough.
I agree especially when confronting the so-called 'indie' rpgs that sometimes take on a haughty attitude, like they're fulfilling what being a 'roleplaying' game is better than what's come before. No, you're not. The genre is what it is, you wanna redefine it? Then find another, new name for your new deep artsy thing. In my opinion only of course.
# posted by 
: September 30, 2008 2:33 PM
: September 30, 2008 2:33 PM
I haven't played Spore or Little Big Planet, so I can't comment on those, but I have played Rock Band, (A lot. Just completed expert Orange Crush today! Woo!) and it certainly is not a role playing game. I am not playing the role of a drummer in a rock band. I am playing the drums (or a facsimile thereof)! The same thing applies to FPSs, RTSs, driving games, city building games, flight simulators, etc. The goal of those games is to simulate a real experience.
Role-playing games, on the other hand, create a distinct role through abstraction, not simulation. If Rock Band were truly an RPG, it would be about as silly as this.
Role-playing games, on the other hand, create a distinct role through abstraction, not simulation. If Rock Band were truly an RPG, it would be about as silly as this.
I don't have a suggestion to solve the naming problem, but I do think that I enjoy some games in the same way that I enjoy RPGs, without the games being technically "RPG"s.
An example is the "Superstar Mode" in Madden 08, which I've been playing lately: you create a player [rpg term: character], choose his position [class], customize his sports gear [equipment], and determine his playing skills [attributes/skills/abilities]. Afterwards, your player is drafted by a team [starting location?], and is given a salary [money/gold]; then you get the chance to raise his skills in training camp [training/leveling up], and during weekly practices and games you can gain 'influence', which can be spent to temporarily improve your teammates' performance [party buff].
I doubt anyone would consider Madden 08 an RPG, but I play its Superstar Mode as if it was one -- in fact, it's the only reason I bought the game. Creating a character, and guiding him/her via interesting choices through a varied and varying world is fun, no matter what that 'world' might be.
I can't speak for others, but plenty of games -- from sports sims to "carPGs" -- scratch that "RPG" itch I get, so I think the term should be broadened in application. Likewise, some of the most engrossing "story games" I've come across have been non-RPGs. There are really two elements here IMO: RPG gameplay, and story-telling focus. The two correlate big-time, but certainly not always.
An example is the "Superstar Mode" in Madden 08, which I've been playing lately: you create a player [rpg term: character], choose his position [class], customize his sports gear [equipment], and determine his playing skills [attributes/skills/abilities]. Afterwards, your player is drafted by a team [starting location?], and is given a salary [money/gold]; then you get the chance to raise his skills in training camp [training/leveling up], and during weekly practices and games you can gain 'influence', which can be spent to temporarily improve your teammates' performance [party buff].
I doubt anyone would consider Madden 08 an RPG, but I play its Superstar Mode as if it was one -- in fact, it's the only reason I bought the game. Creating a character, and guiding him/her via interesting choices through a varied and varying world is fun, no matter what that 'world' might be.
I can't speak for others, but plenty of games -- from sports sims to "carPGs" -- scratch that "RPG" itch I get, so I think the term should be broadened in application. Likewise, some of the most engrossing "story games" I've come across have been non-RPGs. There are really two elements here IMO: RPG gameplay, and story-telling focus. The two correlate big-time, but certainly not always.
This again.
"Playing a role" doesn't really describe the gameplay of RPGs, it's not a good name. That's all there is to it.
In other news "adventure" doesn't really describe the gameplay of adventure games either. Embarking on an adventure, say, with your spaceship, shooting aliens, in a top-down view, doesn't make it an adventure game.
I guess RPG is being singled out because it's one of the most obviously bad names as well as one that sort of applies to nearly anything. And one where the players are arguing about what the genre really is anyway. But it's not as if the first person shooting bit is really the most fundamental part of FPSes; there are plenty third person games that play more like FPSes than other third person games. And so on.
One way to deal with all this is to stick to the genre names we're used to and accept that most of them aren't very good names. Another is to invent new names for all the genres. And then good luck with getting people to use those names and so on. And then there's a third, nonsensical and ridiculously retarded option, where you think that it's reasonable to judge Rock Band and Day of the Tentacle by the same criteria because you're playing roles in both of them.
"Playing a role" doesn't really describe the gameplay of RPGs, it's not a good name. That's all there is to it.
In other news "adventure" doesn't really describe the gameplay of adventure games either. Embarking on an adventure, say, with your spaceship, shooting aliens, in a top-down view, doesn't make it an adventure game.
I guess RPG is being singled out because it's one of the most obviously bad names as well as one that sort of applies to nearly anything. And one where the players are arguing about what the genre really is anyway. But it's not as if the first person shooting bit is really the most fundamental part of FPSes; there are plenty third person games that play more like FPSes than other third person games. And so on.
One way to deal with all this is to stick to the genre names we're used to and accept that most of them aren't very good names. Another is to invent new names for all the genres. And then good luck with getting people to use those names and so on. And then there's a third, nonsensical and ridiculously retarded option, where you think that it's reasonable to judge Rock Band and Day of the Tentacle by the same criteria because you're playing roles in both of them.
I approve of RPG elements appearing in other games nowadays - and I also approve of moves to really push the boundaries of the category a bit, too. But while RPG might not be a great name today, I think it has more meaning now than it did originally, and it's certainly more than its component words.
"While we're at it, why don't we fix that problem with us driving on a parkway and parking on a driveway, and swap those words around."
ROFL! Excellent idea! =D
Post a Comment
ROFL! Excellent idea! =D
Links to this post:
<< Home
