[Rainer Deyke]

I have to say, the categories on RPGDX make little to no sense to me. In particular:

• To me, rogue-like is a style of gameplay, not a way of representing the game world. There are Angband varieties with graphics, are they not rogue-like? Diablo plays exactly like Angband, is it not a rogue-like?
  
• The whole "adventure" category... To me, "adventure" means the Sierra or LucasArts adventure games. Outside the context of computer games, an "adventure" is more or less a "quest", and therefore describes almost all rpgs. I would classify Zelda as an action rpg. It's a traditional rpg except the combat is arcade-style instead of turn-based or "active time".
  
• The defining characteristic of the "dungeon" category seems to be the first-person perspective. If that's the case, why call it "dungeon"? Wouldn't "first-person" be more accurate?
  
• The stategy category: "Combat is usually depicted by hexagonal or grid combat fields and makes up at least 90% of the gameplay time. " First off, this describes a lot of games that I wouldn't call strategic. For ecample, rogue-likes. But more importantly, it excludes many games that involve real long-term strategy. For example, King of Dragon Pass is almost a pure strategy game (with minor rpg elements), but it involves very little combat.
  
• "Traditional" seems to be a catch-all category, including most Japanese rpgs, most Western rpgs, and (ironically) all games that are too quirky to fit into any of the other categories. Nothing really wrong with that, but I have to wonder if it wouldn't make sense to subdivide it further, as it currently includes far more games than all the other categories combined.
  
• On a more general note, it seems that there is a lot of overlap between the catagories. Where would a first-person Zelda clone with ASCII graphics go?
  

[MANDRAKE_yoinbk]

[Rainer Deyke]

[Bjorn]

Ok, let me first say thay I really like some discussion about this, because this categorizing of RPGs is not my specialty. I've been playing too few RPGs for that. In my news post I have clearly stated that I took the genres and their descriptions from the RPG Gold Compo 2003 website, for which I asked the author's permission. To me, that looked like an ok list of genres.

I can understand, however, that people will disagree on particularly how a genre is described and which genres should be present and which not. I have removed non-linear and compo-entry because they were clearly not genres but rather single attributes.

I'll comment on each current RPG style:

• Traditional (77)
  Clearly overpopulated, I'm sure lot's of games in here will fit in one of the other categories though. I think FF-style sums up this one. I welcome suggestions to make the description more specific.
  
  
• Action (12)
  In this case, it's all about focus. If a game has a strong combat and leveling up focus, preferably real-time, it's an action RPG. Diablo clearly enteres this category. Arguably, so do Roguelike RPGs, but because they are so entirely different (much more depth, more versatile, playing with keyboard, turn-based, etc.) I have made Roguelike a seperate RPG type.
  
  
• Strategy (3)
  From my point of view this type has tile-based, turn-based, party-based combat. I have played only one game of this type, but can't remember it's name. Combat would take long, after which a short journey was made on the world map and some dialogue, and then another round of combat. Improvements on the genre description are welcome.
  
  I think Roguelike doesn't go into this category mostly because there is no seperation between combat and the rest of the game and it's single person.
  
  What makes King of Dragon Pass a strategy RPG, when it involves little combat? I do not know the game.
  
  
• Adventure (4)
  I have always wondered why people stated Zelda was not an RPG. When I played it, clearly I was playing the role of a little guy and needed to solve an interesting quest. It also looked like an RPG, with it's top-down tile-based graphics.
  
  But indeed, Zelda is rather action packed making it fit perfectly in the Action section. Maybe the description of Adventure RPGs should be adapted. I'm thinking of Adventure RPGs as RPGs that have linear gameplay, and focus on puzzle solving more than combat. In this way though, Zelda was indeed an Adventure RPG because it had many puzzles, even beating the bosses was always puzzle-like in that you had to find out how to deal damage, and because it had a linear story.
  
  So I guess the most important aspect missing in this genre is the puzzle aspect. And now that I think of it, the puzzle aspect may be inappropriate for the Traditional RPG description, as I don't recall Final Fantasy having much (or even any?) puzzles.
  
  
• Engine (4)
  Not a genre, just something that could not find a better spot.
  
  
• Dungeon (0)
  In this case, first-person is not strict enough for me because this type of RPG was clearly based on streight corridors and allowed only 90 degree turns. The Dungeon genre clearly falls under first-person though, so it might be a good idea to broaden this RPG type up a bit. On the other hand, if I think about other first person RPGs like Morrowind for example, that's clearly an action RPG because of it's focus on realtime combat.
  
  
• Text based (0)
  Text adventures might not be really RPGs, but some have RPG elements like Zork, which allowed you to collect treasures, fight monsters and get injured. And I think Barok was working on a text based RPG... :-)
  
  
• Roguelike (2)
  In my opinion, this one deserves a seperate category because it is so it's own style. Indeed, Diablo is heavily based on this type, but it has a totally different feal to it. While Diablo would go into Action, I don't agree with putting Roguelikes into Action.

I'm sorry for the long read...

[BigManJones]

I'll throw in my 2 cents...

Action rpg - Zelda (edit: and feyna's quest). There is action, puzzle solving, all in real time.

Console rpg - final fantasy, chrono-trigger, etc...

Computer rpg - everything else ;P

[Rainer Deyke]

[mandrake*rpgdx]

[papillon]

I'll join the party and say what *I* thought the categories meant when I joined up to the site, and why I put my game in what, apparently, may not be a great category for it...

1. Traditional

"typical console RPG" is a broad phrase, but suitable. Turn-based combat, possibly a party system, probably towns where you can talk to people and buy things, character-leveling, big overland maps...

2. Action

Pretty much anything with real-time combat in it. This includes Zelda as well as Diablo.

3. Strategy

Toughie to define, but I figured this one as any game where the player had to consider a broader scale than just the one little character going about the quest. If you're playing a king, for instance, and have to decide how many knights to hire and how much to pay them before going to the battle sequences where you get to play out the combat and see how well your decisions play out, that's strategy. This is why I stuck Charm School in the strategy department, because when the game is finished, the *point* of the game is much more about your choices and how they affect the girls' outcomes in the end than it is about the dungeon crawling with the individual girls. Elsewhere I refer to the game as a Sim/Action/RPG which I think gets the point across a little better, but there isn't a Sim category here. :)

4. Adventure

Puzzle-solving. Less linear in terms of story as well as character advancement - an adventure-RPG game is less likely to have a strict leveling system. Zelda only just verges on this category. Much better example would be the Sierra Hero's Quest / Quest for Glory games. (Some of which had realtime combat, but one had a "strategy mode" for battles that I much appreciated.) You could be playing one of three (later four) basic character types, and within those types you might have different skills, so puzzles *needed* multiple solutions. And I still enjoy replaying them with different characters. :) Many of the great computer RPG games of recent times are best classed here as well... Fallout, Torment, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, they all have *some* puzzle-solving elements and some flexibility to go along with it.

As for the rest, Roguelike and text-based are clear enough, but I wouldn't know what 'dungeon' meant from just seeing the headline. Had to read the description for that.

[Rainer Deyke]

[mandrake*rpgdx]

not arguing- defending what i think is a good choice by bjorn.

[Rainer Deyke]

[mandrake*rpgdx]

[Rainer Deyke]

[Bjorn]

Mandrake mentionined that my descriptions/choices are ok but I'd like to stress that they're not mine. Please take into account I merely took them from the Gold Compo 2003 site because I thought that would be a good idea. Now I'm not blaming the author in question (Nekrophidius) because I think he has done a great job on describing the different types of RPGs in general.

The problem, I think, is that we're trying to be too specific. There's too much mixing of RPG elements in all kind of different ways which makes that some RPGs won't fit into any of our current categories and others will fit in multiple.

If the above is really the problem (confirm or deny if you wish), then the solution is reducing the number of genres. I'm thinking about taking it back to how we started, though still without the non-linear and compo entry categories. That would make the list papillon has been describing (a very helpfull post): Traditional, Action, Strategy and Adventure. Now all we have to do is write up description so that any RPG has a 'best fit' as clear as possible, and no category is an obvious 'catch all'. I think we should be describing the focus of the game. Let's try some descriptions out (comments welcome):

• Traditional
  

  papillon wrote:

  "typical console RPG" is a broad phrase, but suitable. Turn-based combat, possibly a party system, probably towns where you can talk to people and buy things, character-leveling, big overland maps...

  
  I would like to add that turn-based combat can be continues-time using charge bars too. A problem might be (but doesn't have to be) that this category will still be the catch-all category.
  
  
• Action
  

  papillon wrote:

  Pretty much anything with real-time combat in it. This includes Zelda as well as Diablo.

  
  But I would like to add that non-realtime games can fall into this category too. I'm thinking about most roguelikes, which are indeed action based: story, puzzles and strategic combat are secondary if at all present.
  
  About the discussion about Zelda being Action or Adventure... I think it's a great mix of both elements and it would be really up to the author to choose what type he thinks most fitting. Both would be a fine choice in my opinion.
  
  
• Strategy
  Again, I agree mostly with papillon here. In my opinion, strategy RPGs offer something extra in the combat department like fighting with parties, turn and grid-based. Or indeed, offering some kind of preparation to the combat in which you need to make strategic judgement on what equipment will be most appropriate or how many extra mercenaries to hire. It could also be that you added RTS elements or mixed RTS with RPG, like Warcraft III.
  
  
• Adventure
  Again... you know the drill. :-)
  Adventures have a strong focus on story and playing a certain predefined character (or multiple). LucasArts type games (but with RPG elements added) would fit here but indeed Baldurs Gate as well. While Baldurs Gate has pretty strategic combat, in my opinion it's adventure elements are stronger.
  

There are at least a few things I haven't mentioned. One of them is non-linearity, which I think will fit in any of the above categories. Another is ASCII graphics, an ASCII game could fit any of the above genres as well. A Dungeon RPG would fit at least into either Action or Adventure, depending on the focus.

So what do you think, I would like any additional comments about this before trying to write up the final descriptions. Suggestions for descriptions are welcome as well.

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

     Can't we just wait and see how the categories as they stand fill up? If we find one of them to be popular, it's a keeper, and if one of them stays relatively empty for a long time, junk it. I mean, the purpose of the genres is to make it easier to find a game you might like, not the imposition of some rigid academic formulae.