Open-minded people: Are Symphony of the Night and Terranigma "RPGs"?

[Sigourn]

It has come to a point where I can tell what an RPG is and what it isn't, using my criteria which so far has proven flawless to me.
Then someone on 4chan claimed Zelda is an action RPG, and my criteria proved them wrong.

I went ahead and noticed that two games aren't RPGs, by my definition. Those are:

• Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.
• Terranigma.

I've always been against selling SotN as an "RPG" when the emphasis is on action platforming. But I've gone a step ahead and not only claimed it is NOT an RPG, but that Terranigma, a game which the vast majority of people agree is an "action RPG", isn't an RPG either.

Why is this? Because my definition of an RPG is that it requires player agency: the player has to be able to define that character through their stats/traits/"metrics" that determine what they can and cannot do. But the emphasis is on the term "player agency".

• In Symphony of the Night, there's no agency. You play and you level up. That's the extent of its "RPG elements", because leveling up means your stats increase (core RPG mechanic being "stats"), but the player can't choose how to define his character.
• What I said for Symphony of the Night rings true for Terranigma, word for word.

The most interesting thing about all of this is that I stopped playing Terranigma because when playing it many months ago I kept thinking the same thing: "this is supposed to be an RPG, but I feel like I'm playing Zelda". And that was because, aside from the emphasis on action (which is completely forgiveable, there are action RPGs out there), never was I doing anything to define my character, and thus there was no RPG to be found. Remove level ups and exp, scale down enemy levels to the character, and nothing would be lost: only grinding if you weren't good enough.

This is a thread for open minded people, people who aren't dead set on what others have said and whatever definitions they may have encountered in the past. I'm willing to to have a good discussion.

NOTE: I have mentioned these two games and these two games only. I don't know how Secret of Mana plays, nor how Illusion of Gaia or SoulBlazer (sister games to Terranigma) play. So let's keep this discussion to these two games only.

 

[Harry Easter]

Never played Symphony of the Night, but I think Terranigma is an RPG, since it pushes the exploring aspects of game like Ys (which is funny, because the guys behind it worked on the first two Ys) and the story in the foreground. It may be even more barebone than games likes Dragon Quests (which also kept it simple), but the feeling of beeing an RPG is there. Because Terranigma rewards you with more story, while in Zelda it is more about the gameplay and the question what dungeon comes next.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Does equipment not count as a means to define your character? Certainly in many rpgs that's the only method, as they have the same kind of predetermined gains from gaining levels.

Anyways, I'd say SotN has player agency, not through how you define your character, but in the paths you choose to take, which incidentally define your character but not in a way you can control on a first time playthrough. I wouldn't say that makes it an RPG though. A character with mistform and powerful spells is different from a chracter with bat form and an excellent weapon. It all converges in the end, sure, but so do plenty of rpgs with shallow skill trees.

Anyways, I don't look at these things as a binary situation. A game can be like 10 or 30% rpg. Genres are messy and arbitrary by nature.

 

[Max Damage]

SotN is Metroidvania, it has RPG elements but at its core it is platformer. The "RPG" parts of it are limited and added on top of platforming and fighting, same as Simon's Quest. There're no mutually exclusive character progression paths as well.

 

[Delterius]

Pretty sure Symphony is a 2d fighter game since I spent the whole playthrough practicing the Life Stealer combo like I'm at an arcade or something.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

"Action RPG" is commonly understood as an action game with customization of skills and items. The deepness varies wildly and making more categories to account for that isn't useful.

The concept of agency (the ability to make decisions for yourself, can be limited by external factors) is too broad to be useful here since a game by definition lets you make choices that can lead to victory or defeat (otherwise it would play by itself), and electronic RPGs don't necessarily have alternate paths to complete the story

 

[Goi~Yaas~Dinn]

Then someone on 4chan claimed Zelda is an action RPG, and my criteria proved them wrong.

Question: why do you hate yourself enough to go to 4chan in the current year? Is this some deep-rooted sense of self-harm for which you should be receiving therapy?

 

[Sigourn]

Does equipment not count as a means to define your character?

In my opinion, no. But I'm willing to listen if you can elaborate on what "equipment" means, i.e. the sole existence of equipment makes for an RPG, or do other things have to be kept in mind?

Thanks for your input.

 

[Sigourn]

"Action RPG" is commonly understood as an action game with customization of skills and items. The deepness varies wildly and making more categories to account for that isn't useful.

The concept of agency (the ability to make decisions for yourself, can be limited by external factors) is too broad to be useful here since a game by definition lets you make choices that can lead to victory or defeat (otherwise it would play by itself), and electronic RPGs don't necessarily have alternate paths to complete the story

Yes, I define "agency" as player agency when it comes to defining the character you play as. This is why I don't consider agency in choosing equipment "proper" RPG agency, but agency when deciding your stats on level up (which define your character to its very core) is "proper" RPG agency. Like you said, any game lets you make choices that can lead to victory or defeat. What I consider to be intrinsecal to RPGs is that you define your character through their stats/skills or other metric present in the game. But most importantly, your character shouldn't be set in stone, upgrades shouldn't be set in stone (i.e. bonus HP, bonus HP+1, bonus HP+2, like gaining extra hearts in Zelda or the different cool upgrades in Hollow Knight).

 

[Machocruz]

Never played Terranigma. Player skill dominates in SoTN, with equipment acting as a difficulty slider, so to speak. The stats in the game don't really define anything because there is nothing to compare them against, no other character or world information. But obviously Alucard is superhuman and a highly skilled fighter, and if it were a "true" RPG, that should maintain no matter the manual dexterity level of the player. Conversely, if Alucard was a gimp, no amount of skill at action games would allow the player to make him perform as otherwise, in a true RPG. SoTN is an action game first and foremost, but call it ARPG and I wouldn't argue. Action RPGs are just an action game with stats and experience points from their inception.

 

[Goi~Yaas~Dinn]

Never played Terranigma.

You're doing yourself a favor. Pretty graphics, good music, absolutely stultifying gameplay. The story attempts to be 2deep4u but instead falls on its ass and just comes off as anemic and weak.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

^Which reminds me of this Naked Alucard run. Around 2:30 he mentions that the game feels more balanced that way

 

[Damned Registrations]

Does equipment not count as a means to define your character?

In my opinion, no. But I'm willing to listen if you can elaborate on what "equipment" means, i.e. the sole existence of equipment makes for an RPG, or do other things have to be kept in mind?

Thanks for your input.

So two examples come to mind here. The first are roguelikes such as Nethack, or hell, even Rogue itself. Your character gets nothing more than some flat stat bonuses on level up. The only thing that makes your character different from others is their equipment, not just what you're wearing, but consumables as well. A character wandering around with a backpack full of wands and scrolls plays very differently than one with some healing potions and highly enchanted gear. The agency here is in how you spent your money mostly for Nethack, but it applies in exploration focused games (Whether zelda or SotN) in a different way- where have you spent your time. Did you run around smacking suspicious walls to find hidden loot? Did you massacre enemies to get their rare drops? Did you dive into areas you're not meant to be in to get an item before you were meant to? These all end up giving you dfferent rewards and often change the game signifiacantly.

Another, perhaps more nitpicky example, is Record of Lodoss War on the dreamcast. Again, your character can gain levels, but here the effect is especially trivial. The difference between a fresh character and a naked engame character is less than the difference between a fresh character and the equipment you have 10 minutes later. And the equipment in this game gets customized to a ludicrous extent, to the point that it basically is your character. You can upgrade dozens of different stats in various amounts by spending currency, and apply various mutually exclusive enchantments to your main equipment slots that have major effects, like making you immune to staggering, or doubling your hp or letting you lifesteal. The build variety is pretty crazy, but it's all in what you're wearing.

The main thing that moves the needle for me on what makes something an rpg is how much you can change the gameplay by playing the game. And making the game a bit easier or harder by making things die faster or slower is a very minor example of this. The difference between playing with a strong or weak character isn't as important as the difference between playing an archer or a swordsman, and the difference between different types of combat isn't as important as the difference between exploring entirely different areas with different enemies and hazards and stories, or the difference between focusing on combat or avoiding it and doing other shit.

I never finished Terranigma but from what I recall it wasn't very open, so no matter what you did you were basically forced into doing things the same way as everyone else. Early Zelda games let you go off the rails pretty much immediately, and two people would rarely have similar experiences with the game. The signature of a good rpg to me is when you talk about a boss you fought and one of you says something like "That shit was fucking easy, I used the fire sword from the dragon" and the other says "What? I didn't get that till like 6 hours later, I had to fight him by using a bunch of poison arrows and running around forever."

 

[Shinji]

The only "true" role playing experience is the tabletop one, which is limited only by the participants' imagination.

Computer games are approximations.
Also, they usually represent a "branch" of an infinite amount of possible branches in that fictional man-made reality.

That is to say, there is no room for expansion in computer games since there is a predetermined sequence of events that *must* happen in a very specific way. Even if the game has a story with multiple endings/outcomes, these are still predetermined. Heck, the simple fact that the game *has* a story implies that things should happen in a specific way.

In other words, a "true" role playing experience should be a simulation. No right or wrong, no story, no quests, no progression, no imposed objectives. You're another cog in the machine, and the simulation shouldn't care about you more than any other entity living in that world. (But since that would be boring, most DMs favor real-life participants over the other non-controllable entities to make it more entertaining)

Another important aspect of a role playing experience is that you're not your character (or characters), so your skills in real life should not affect the outcome of any interaction that happens in that fictional world (other than using your brain to solve problems and your knowledge of that world and the logic that is bound to it)

In an ideal simulation, every small aspect of reality would be simulated by a complex system. So your characters could have a brain, memory, muscles, digestive system, vision, fears, desires and so on.
This simulation is obviously impossible to achieve (at least in our lifetime), and such amount of detail is often unnecessary.

Thus, characters have attributes which in turn have a value, which is a simple way to model that.
Being able to change these numbers allows the player to give wings to his imagination, as he can basically choose how his characters will be able to interact with the world and respond to different situations based on the values he chose for them.

So you're right when you say that a role playing game should allow the player to choose which skill points of his characters to increment (even though I believe the starting role/attributes should be more important than any future character improvements)

On the other hand, most of these games that have attributes are usually focused on only one type of interaction -- that is usually combat.
Dark Souls and Castlevania SOTN are examples of games that only allow the player interact with the world through combat.

This leads me to believe that we have "role playing experiences" and "role playing games".
Role playing *experiences* focuses on allowing the characters to interact with the world in various ways, with no predominant form of interaction.
Role playing *games* focuses primarily on a specific activity (such as combat), and gives freedom for the player to choose how his characters will participate in this primary activity that they're bound to.

The former is only achievable in real life, by using the imagination.

I believe that any game that favors player skill over character skill shouldn't be considered a role playing game.
Thus, Dark Souls and Castlevania shouldn't be considered role playing games, but simply games in which the combat effectiveness of your character is determined by his attributes, and if you're a really skilled player you can finish the game without having to improve your character's attributes.

Then we have role playing games that are focused on (character skill-based) combat, but allow other forms of (character skill-based) interactions (e.g. Realms of Arkania, Darklands, Fallout 1&2)
We also have hybrids, in which player skill predominates in some interactions, while other interactions are determined solely by character skill (e.g. Skyrim, Gothic, Mount & Blade)

I think games like Final Fantasy could be considered role playing games, because most of the games in the series have combat in which you only give commands, and the characters' attributes determines the outcome. Also, FFV allows you to choose jobs, which is a way of saying "I want this character to be good at x".

Since most role playing games usually give the player character a role and a background (e.g. guy that must get water chip, dragonborn, get the Blade of Destiny, witcher), then there's nothing wrong with Final Fantasy also doing the same thing.

 

[aweigh]

What I believe: Action-RPGs by definition can't be real RPGs, because they allow player player reflexes to decide things, instead of the game rules and other manegirial abstractions.

The problem: ...however, now I run into the problem where Fallout: New Vegas isn't an RPG by my own definitions, and I consider F:NV a true RPG. Uh-oh!

Conclusion: Thinking about this makes my head hurt, but with this new amendment to my rule I've found that I'm around 90% accurate: if the game has a dodge-roll button then it isn't an RPG. And yes, I specifically mean games like Witcher 3 or Dark Souls.

P.S. Also, I think the defining characteristic of the RPG template is tied to combat and conflict resolution. Picture Age of Decadence, now take away its combat and the things related to it... and what happens? It stops being an RPG. Codexian "c&c" meme has very little to do with what makes RPGs RPGs.

 

[Jack]

The problem: ...however, now I run into the problem where Fallout: New Vegas isn't an RPG by my own definitions, and I consider F:NV a true RPG.

New Vegas is rather obviously a shooter with RPG mechanics, just like Deus Ex. The thing which defines CRPGs as a genre are the abstracted conflict and task resolution systems that provide outcomes based on the stats of the player character(s) and (most often) dicerolls. Not choices and consequences as often cited indeed. I think the desire to include NV and Deus Ex in the CRPG genre stems from the lack of prestige of the ARPG genre. One does not wish to put good games one likes in the same drawer as popamole, so to remain monocled one falsifies classification, consciously or otherwise.

 

[mushaden]

Agree with aweigh. And so, because terranigma doesn't have a dodge/roll button (althought it does have a block button), it is an rpg. But I also think something about the fact that it has "towns" with shops.

 

[Machocruz]

The problem: ...however, now I run into the problem where Fallout: New Vegas isn't an RPG by my own definitions, and I consider F:NV a true RPG. Uh-oh!

Is this true though? Never appeared to me that any amount of FPS skill could do much to alleviate low character combat skills, contrary if your character's skills are high, you can beat enemies even if you absolutely reek at shooters.

 

[Jokzore]

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

 

[Delterius]

^Which reminds me of this Naked Alucard run. Around 2:30 he mentions that the game feels more balanced that way

considering this fucking thing

can be paired with

for maximum cheap that is probably true

 

[Goi~Yaas~Dinn]

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

That's possibly one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever read.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

It's a warhammer quote, makes more sense in context

 

[Nifft Batuff]

If I can play a stealth character in a game that is not a stealth game, then it is a RPG.
If I can play a combat character in a game that is not a combat game, then it is a RPG.
etc.

 

[Perkel]

SOTN
No because it does not have core RPG feature. Meaningful choices.
Progression system is not what makes RPG.

You can have RPG without even single stat but you can't have RPG without choice.
And those choices must be meaningful not just do you want to go around tower from left side or right side.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

No.
Like others have said it's a tricky thing to define what a ARPG really is.
One of the main reason I don't see SotN or even Dark Souls an RPG, is that you can see that's no focus on the RPG elements as there is in Deus Ex/Gothic/New Vegas/etc...

What I believe: Action-RPGs by definition can't be real RPGs, because they allow player player reflexes to decide things, instead of the game rules and other manegirial abstractions.

Deus Ex would like to have a word with you.